Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
What Obama's Risking in Afghanistan
President Obama's campaign slogan was "Change we can believe in." Americans, desperate for change, gave Mr. Obama a clear victory. Now in power, he's realizing that he can't deliver that change - at least in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama said during his campaign: "I will meet with military leaders and the secretary of Defense and give them a new mission - bring our troops home safely and responsibly from Iraq within 16 months."
But there is now no plan to fully withdraw our troops from Iraq within that time frame. After meeting with military leaders, Mr. Obama is considering a 23-month withdrawal.
Violence in Iraq has been in decline. But the situation remains dicey. We're very likely to see a spike in violence at some point in the near future. When that happens, the new 23-month withdrawal plan will be extended.
On the Afghan front, Obama has just ordered 17,000 more troops into the effort. The timing is pertinent. The Pakistanis, our supposed allies, have agreed to a truce with the Taliban, providing them sanctuary in Swat, an area roughly the size of Delaware. The Taliban version of Muslim sharia law has been imposed, and the Pakistanis have suspended all military operations against them. The Pakistani government has denied our troops access to this area. Pakistani troops have even shot at our helicopters flying reconnaissance missions.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban have been in resurgence for years. And this concession by Pakistan will give the Taliban ample time to prepare for our new troops who'll be just walking in the door.
Why just 17,000? Because that's all we can spare due to the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the turnaround time needed for those returning from combat.
The Afghan surge is a terribly bad idea. But Obama can initiate it because of his high approval ratings. Sound familiar? George W. Bush's ratings were quite similar before the invasion of Iraq. Imagine if Bush were still in office and pulled this stunt? The crowd I run with on the left would be screaming in protest.
Now it's just me who's screaming, waiting for the rest of the anti-war gang to voice disagreement with this certain fiasco.
Bush bet the farm on Iraq and let Afghanistan fall by the wayside. We missed our window of opportunity to defeat al Qaeda in the early years of the war and nab Bin Laden. So who are we going to be fighting? Obama needs to define the mission.
The Soviets bogged down in Afghanistan with 100,000 boots on the ground. The United States backed the Mujahedeen for Cold War reasons. After we helped the Mujahedeen defeat the Soviets, they turned on us.
Will we now rely on the Northern Alliance in a similar fashion? After all, they're an offspring of the Mujahedeen. They fought the Taliban, but their ideologies are almost identical.
And despite Obama's commitment of troops, Gen. David McKiernan, overseeing the war in Afghanistan, can't ensure success. He has emphasized the difference between the troop surge in Iraq and the one in Afghanistan, saying the Afghanistan surge won't be short-lived - we'll be there for years.
Most U.S. combat troops arriving in this first wave will be sent to southern Afghanistan, an area McKiernan describes as a stalemate, at best.
If our troops get bogged down in the Kandahar area, what will become of the rest of the country? Al Qaeda and the Taliban will surely be enticed to regain ground in other areas. All while war-weary NATO troops work on their plans to extricate themselves from the situation.
I see a dilemma. We have to do something. But 17,000 troops won't make a difference, except to cost more lives and money.
What does Afghani president Hamid Karzai have to contribute? Not a whole lot.
I'm not sure we can trust Karzai, a former member of the Mujahedeen, early supporter of the Taliban and former lobbyist for the U.S. oil company Unocal.
After eight years of U.S. involvement, the Afghan army and defense ministry still rely heavily on U.S. troops for most security operations.
And don't forget the extremely challenging terrain, especially in a war. The country is extremely mountainous, with limited water, with blistering summers, and frigid winters. And don't forget the borders with China, Iran, Russia and Pakistan, creating worries about regional conflict.
Americans are fed up with war. History shows that no war can be won without the support of the people. And the economy is so dire it's hard to understand why Obama would allow such an expensive military commitment.
I know the president is tasked with protecting the American people. But Mr. Obama is moving too quickly without doing his homework.
- Posted in
82 Comments so far
Show AllMr. Obama is a shill of the plutocracy. He will never withdraw from Iraq, but will waste billions of dollars in Afghanistan trying to do what the American military cannot do.
President Obama is not a shill and you're not a psychic.
Be an Obama shill all you want but he ain't foolin' us !
Military spending has been a reliable means of pulling the United States' tit out of the economic ringer during past recessions and depressions. Obama and other politicians are not going to hamper military spending, irrespective of location.
The current economic meltdown is more complex than past panics, recessions and depressions. Military spending will therefore not be the economic savior it has been on some occassions in the past.
If Mr. Obama really wanted to "protect the American people", he'd end all these wars, bring home all US troops, ships and planes based overseas, break all entangling alliances (the UN, NATO, and "special relationships" like those with Israel and the UK) and announce that this country's grand strategy from now on will be wholly defensive in nature.
But he cannot or will not; and so the American Empire is headed, like Humpty Dumpty, for a great fall.
"If Mr. Obama really wanted to "protect the American people", he'd end all these wars"
Yeah, right, because 911 never happened.
I guess New Yorkers don't matter to you.
Will you ever engage in honest debate,Joseph? What do you seek to accomplish with your almost petulant one liners? Equating criticism of the actions of our President with a callous disregard for the victims of 9/11 is simply dishonesty on your part. Further it lends credence to those who think your efforts vapid, untruthful and inaccurate.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that military intervention cannot solve the problem of radical fundamentalism in the Islamic community. All our troops are accomplishing is increasing hatred against us, swelling the ranks of those who choose violence and helping to destroy our economy, in other words doing bin Laden's job for him.
Thinking or just posting that any and all criticisms of the policies and pathways of your new President is disloyalty or callous disregard for the lives lost is exactly the opposite of reality. We criticize because we see clearly that our current "solutions" will lead inevitably to more violence, not less. If you see a different conclusion then say so and we can engage on the facts. But for heavens sakes ,Joseph, quit posting such churlishness.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
"Equating criticism of the actions of our President with a callous disregard for the victims of 9/11 is simply dishonesty on your part."
How is it dishonesty? PaulfromGA wants to end the war in Afghanistan. I want to catch Bin Laden, and destroy al Qaeda and the Taliban. It's an honest disagreement.
""It is becoming increasingly obvious that military intervention cannot solve the problem of radical fundamentalism in the Islamic community. All our troops are accomplishing is increasing hatred against us, swelling the ranks of those who choose violence and helping to destroy our economy, in other words doing bin Laden's job for him."
In Iraq, that's true. But Afghanistan is different.
"But for heavens sakes ,Joseph, quit posting such churlishness."
I find that I disagree with certain people, like yourself. But I don't tell them to shut up. I'm a progressive. I happen to value differences of opinion. Others, like yourself, just want to preach to the choir.
Have you absolutely no regard for the truth? Do you somehow believe that your posts are invisible once someone notes the insults contained within them? Do you really believe that remarks such as:
"I guess New Yorkers don't matter to you."
or
"Others, like yourself, just want to preach to the choir."(what does that even mean? Are you the choir? I am, after all, addressing you)
are not insulting, off topic and simply discouraging to further debate?
You do, in fact, tell people to shut up all the time, and now you think those who still have the stomach to read and respond to you have a reading comprehension problem. Would you like me to search the archives and note the numerous times you have tried to paint critics as disloyal? Or the even more numerous times you have fled the field after one or another of your outrageous efforts is exposed with links?
Now that you have posted yet another one liner:
"In Iraq, that's true. But Afghanistan is different"
Perhaps you might enlighten me as to how exactly will Afghanistan be different. More impenetrable terrain, more factions, more warlords, more experience at defeating foreign invaders...Is that what you mean?
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
Wake up the one party system is killing our country. Democrats and Republicans, same shit different assholes.
If you can't see the difference between Bush/McCain and Obama then you are blind.
If you can't see that there is really no difference between Bush/McCain and Obama then YOU are blind.
Okay #1 what about torture?
McCain/Bush support it.
Obama banned it.
"If you can't see that there is really no difference between Bush/McCain and Obama then YOU are blind."
Duncan,
Okay #1 what about torture?
McCain/Bush support it.
Obama banned it.
As long as rendition is still allowed we are complicit in the torture that awaits these prisoners in Egypt and Syria and wherever else we ship them.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
Joe Doh,
I know you'll deny peeing your pants, but there's a dark stain on your trousers, and a yellow puddle at your feet. But everyone else is blind.
Hmmm. Why not just call me a pee-pee head?
Can we make this forum "adults only"?
Joehope -- you do make very good points...and i think i can understand your concerns.
but we have to equally be willing to acknowledge that while there ARE differences between OBAMA and MCCAIN - and in many areas -- in OTHER areas they are similar because they represent, both of them, something that is greater than their differences, perhaps....and that is:
the continuance of American EMPIRE and American hegemonic attempts.
we are simply hoping and expressing what we all surely think obama would at least LEAN towards - which is ending this "business of empire" because it just costs too much for everyone involved in the planet...
the countries the USA meddles with for its empire...and its consequences for its own nationhood.
"the continuance of American EMPIRE and American hegemonic attempts. "
I have to disagree. We don't have an empire. We are a Superpower which I view as different from the concept of empire.
Besides, I don't know why you would want America to lose it's status as a Superpower.
There will also be countries competing for power. If we relinquish our power, that just means it will fall to someone else. There will always be someone trying to rule the world,. As fate would have it, we've inherited that responsibility. So let's make the world and better place. Let's use the might of the US as a force for good in the world. For example, if we used our power wisely, we could have stopped the genocide in Rwanda.
"we are simply hoping and expressing what we all surely think obama would at least LEAN towards - which is ending this "business of empire" because it just costs too much for everyone involved in the planet..."
If you mean Iraq, the I agree, we should leave Iraq. But Obama is already doing that, whereas McCain had promised "a hundred year war". I see that as a major difference. On the other hand, if we are talking about our operations in Afghanistan, then I am more inclined to view it as self defense.
In other areas, like Darfur, I would like to see direct intervention. But I understand that's probably not possible right now.
What defines an Empire?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_United_States_Military
The military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 [1]countries around the world, with more than 369,000 of its 1,379,551[2] active-duty troops serving outside the United States and its territories. Many are located on installations opened during the Cold War, in which the US government in the aftermath of World War II thought it needed troops around the globe to counter the Soviet Union, and many countries have less than 100 deployed US troops. Since 2001, the US has deployed troops as part of the War on Terror.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
"we could have stopped the genocide in Rwanda"
Joehope, the US support for the Tutsi Rwanda Patriotic Front in its long planned attack on the Hutu run Rwanda actually triggered the slaughter in Rwanda. Now the Rwandan Tutsi government is a US and UK proxy in the region. If they are not part of a US "empire" then what should we call it? Even the British Empire used indirect rule to achieve its goals. However in the days of the British Empire, "Empire" was a term they were all proud of. Now, rightly, "Empire" is a dirty word and I can understand why American "Superiorists" abroad do not want to be tainted by that brush.
"Let's use the might of the US as a force for good in the world."
Imperial military adventures abroad have generally been claimed to be for some humane cause..."Doing good" is the cover needed to extend ones control militarily. The long term object is economic exploitation. The short term goal is keeping the military industrial complex well oiled.
"If we relinquish our power, that just means it will fall to someone else"
The US is not "relinquishing power", but is in fact increasing its world wide control. Obama would not dare to take on the military industrial complex nor the Israel lobby...it would cost him his life.
this article is a joke from deep inside the imperial psyop
as if obama is in charge of anything
hey i have a plan for the americans
stay the fuck home and quit trying to steal the oil
cheers, b
the afghan surge is all about giving the usa a PIPELINE corridor in central asia . the usa has lost the condi rice gambit of trying to build a pipeline and offer it to europe and india and asia - after extracting oil and gas from central asia and the southern caucasus - bypassing the existing ones running through russia , kazakhstan, turkmenistan etc...
and the US led pipeline was supposed to run from those central asian regions across turkey and down to india.
that has been effectively NEUTERED by russia which has firmed up its neighbors along with it - with the exception of Georgia which itself is irrelevant as an energy source or a conduit or even a military front.
this jmeans the only options the usa HAS to have any say in the transfer of oil and gas for its corporations either to europe or asia to rival the russian/central asian lines is to ask Russia for use of lines it controls or has influence over among the kazakhs and others ....
and/or ask russia's cooperation concerning afghanistan .
but THEN russian knows that while building lines in afhghanistan managed by westerners and USA are longer and more expensive -- it entails exactly what russia does NOT want ...a pipeline OF the USA ....so -- what is russia going to do ? "assist the usa" to pacify afghanistan ONLY so long as it is effective to keep russia's borders safe FROM afghanistan but NOT to enhance the USA's position from an energy point..and in the process BLEED the USA for doing russia a big big favor!!!
same as IRAN. which is the only OTHER option the USA has for another pipeline .
EITHER way -- the USA is at the mercy of both russia and iran -- as of this very moment for the USA's unstated but TRUE reason for being in afghanistan :
hoping to have its own "PIPELINISTAN" in a region where there are already vested interests - both as energy PRODUCERS (iran, russia) AND as CONDUITS of that energy to west and east.
the USA has tried to HUSTLE the east for something -- energy - it does not own -- and tried to own that as well as the MEANS of its transport.
and it will LOSE that hustle.
here's another development :
china has loaned russia around 50 billion dollars. it closed the deal for russia's ailing energy companies (not gazprom) -- that effectively removed that oil and gas from europe and is now going to asia and china....
are the saudis and middle easters going to sit back and watch all that "market" go to waste? of course not -- they are going to want to be IN on the deal TOO and send oil to china .....
and again , further and further away from the USA which begins to lose influence on where the oil goes..particularly affecting the US oil companies.
the central asians, russia, china, even india, iran of course
are quietly making deals without a SINGLE BULLET exchanged among them..........and they OWN the oil and gas and after that the great landmasses and real estate and forests and minerals that are largely untapped for their own untapped domestice markets -- and LESS for "sale to the rest of the world" -- without saying so openly -- NAMELY -- the west and the USA.
think about that...and where it leads to.
and WHILE the USA is busying itself trying to be an empire in the middle east with IRAQ and Afghanistan? where it can't even hold down a city like baghdad while declaring it all a "brilliant success?" and moves on to a dig itself a new hole in afghanistan and PAKISTAN is waiting to blow up in its face while making deals outside of its influence?
this is the result of USA foreign policy of empire which is STUPID.
don't make me laugh!
furthermore -- as obama was considering the "surge" -- medvedev, trained in the western system of management also , and very unprepossing has been making a charm offensive in central asia and iran and china and india....
as a result : the Shanghai Security Organization (china, russia, kazakhstan, turkmenistan, and others, with iran as observer status and poised to become a member) - has become firmed up expanding into a version of a NATO with military cooperation for "quick response" to any "foreign interference" and threats to their gas and oil, especially FROM THE AIR....knowing that THAT is the USA's main "shock and awe" and that the usa has NO CHANCE whatsoever to survive any land incursions.
in the meantime: russia's offer to be the only real alternative outside of IRAN in giving the USA ANY "safe" foothold in that region for its afghan surge or dealing with pakistan extracts the unspoken expectation from the USA:
"no more missile defense in poland and czechoslovakia, no more NATO expansion into russia's borders, NO more intrusions into the southern caucasus"...
and the usa does not hold any cards whatsoever.
so they are dancing a futile effort .
from IRAN's standpoint - its demands for cooperation (with the implicit threat of destabilising iraq further at the expense of the americans) --
"no more regime change attempts, iran is to become a nuclear power - accept it, no more economic sanctions".
and of course -- the issue of palestine and israel.
tthis is why israel is very nervous.. it knows the cards do not belong to the USA .
and YET israel KNOWS it can not attack iran on ITS OWN , knowing that the USA is nervous about allowing it use of IRAQI space to attack iran...because IRAN KNOWS that
"we can have 180,000 american HOSTAGES in iraq"......should the USA make the mistake of allowing israel to attack.
the USA really holds no cards there.
the empire there -- it is OVER.
it is only a question of WHEN the USA will either realize the game is up and then move its butt out as quickly as possible. ..and revert to being a country that does business with those on THEIR terms.
it's that simple.
Looks like we have some Alex Jones fans! The conspiracies just keep coming, I was hoping for aliens...
no conspiracies joe - the pipeline was killed by a lone crazed gunman who hates american freedoms in order to take its wmd's
doncha know anything
cheers, b
i don't know where you get the idea that I am talking about "conspiracy theories" Joehope.
these are actual FACTS on the ground. all i am doing is connecting them .
it IS FACT that Russia, China, the central asian nations -- rich in oil and gas - HAVE a formal organization that arose out of what has emerged as their collective sense of being under assault by the USA and NATO and western europe -- and they are AWARE, naturally -- that if they did NOT have such rich natural treasures they would not be of much interest....
so -- what DO they do?
they band together for mutual security and created the Shanghai Energy Cooperative
tied to something they call "Security cooperation organization"....
and as it is -- they seem to hold the cards.
IRAN is necessary for its cooperation with the USA - regardless of the issue about the nuclear power of iran --
because central asian nations have had a change of mind and are asking the USA to "get out" and they CAN play that game ...because they also know that the USA has invaded iraq for its oil , and is interested in "regime change" in iran and deny it the power to protect itself with nuclear bombs if necessary , the same way as the USA uses its "nuclear deterence" to warn any nation from daring to attack it openly....because of iran's vast gas and oil reserves....and thus render iran OPEN to US exploitation as was PROVEN by the USA's own CIA hatched "regime change" in 1953 to install a SHAH that was friendly to US oil companies.
SO -- why should the cnetral asian nations -- flush with oil and gas - TRUST the USA?
that removes them as possibilities....and only russia has the real power to "offer" the usa any channel...and the other alternative is Iran.
so - in many ways -- the USA is right smack in the middle of a bog of ITS own making.
it wanted to CONTROL the middle east and central asia -- as a preparation for intimidating russia and china and placing an obstacle between them - with the USA SITTING as lord and master of events in those regions.......
and isntead the USA has become DEPENDENT on the the tolerance and good graces and calculations of the russians, iranians, pakistanis and afghanis and other "istans".
why?
it MEDDLED and tried to HUSTLE the east -- where it doesn't belong..and not even JUST THAT -- it tried to DOMINATE THEM!!!
that was a STUPID mistake.
Teddy 11:04 -------- Great Post!
I think Iran is a possibility for a pipeline. The Irans admire our culture and if we gave them a square deal we would have a pipeline. Only thing is chasing pipelines around should be abandoned for renewables. Even Arab Gulf States are investing in and building renewables.
thanks glenn ford.
you are correct in that if anything - while it will take a long long time before the USA (or the world) can wean itself from "non-renewables" which will remain a major part of how our civilization continues for a long while yet ..at least the USA , if nothing more than by force of reality , use its technological prowess and creativity and hopefully a body politic that is more mindful of how consuming and wasteful the american "way of life" really has been ....precisely because of this dependence on "easy oil".
this is also what we might think of as a "silver lining"...where "necessity is the mother of invention" for the betterment of all...and what country has a better position to demonstrate that this can be achieved than the USA?
here is where its true greatness - inventiveness along with ETHICAL civilization -- can make the USA the "great nation" that anyone in the world would hope for and admire without reservation.
a civilization that is willing to ADMIT its errors and correct them, as much as being EAGER and to share them but without imposing its will on others.
that - to me -- is the true sign of a civilized society.
and the USA has a choice -- either become a FAILED STATE due to its "empire" or hubris or arrogance -- or become a true great nation among nations that can inspire others because it eschews the temptations of exploiting others out of its power and need to be "first" .
this is worrisome:
the moment there is administration talk of "he is CONSIDERING".......
the decision has already been made. it doesn't matter by WHOM...he, clinton, petreaus, neocons, emmanuel, doesn't matter...it is , in effect a COLLECTIVE decision .
people are mistaken in thinking that these things have anything to do with "one man against a cabal" or a group against a group...in reality - it is more like a synchronous meeting of SIMILAR viewpoints , and it's just a mtter of finessing the outcome decision. ...which in the end --
where it matters: the impression and effect and judgment of the world and the resulting relationships with the USA.
if obama thinks that he can do what george bush or others can't:
trying to both be a more benevolent empire while trying to also rescusitate it , he is wrong and ironically enough for such power - naive.
even the more benevolent empires such as that of persia or ancient china eventually had neighbors that were either jealous or recalcitrant. not even the imperial rome that tried to satisfy its conquered peoples by granting them full roman citizenship couldn't do it.
does the usa and obama think that they are going to be "exceptional?"
if anything they are facing even more severe resistance and complexities beyond their understanding out of their simplistic notions of "pre-eminence".
he , or the pentagon, think they are being very clever because they can huddle and make plans upon plans and order technology after technology and print money after money, or have new ways of selling snake-oil to afghanis or other foreigners?
doesn't he realize that - even broke as it is in terms of "liquidity" russia would - in the face of continuing american hubris and attempts to dominate especially in russia's near-abroad , than to BOG DOWN the USA in afghanistan, and that is likely the real reason russia is "cooperating" in allowing the USA to have "corridors"? knowing that the end result -- is it will be trapped there and
RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES the "vietnam we gave to russia?"
this is so funny - it doesn't even merit being a farce.
uh, one question for this author: should we have ever invaded afghanistan in the first place? his description of karzai is telling (former taliban/jihadi/unocal employee)
a big part of the problem is the u.s. doesn't do retreat. except when it becomes so grotesquely costly that there's no other option (a la vietnam). not an option, not discussed, not considered. the current situation can only deteriorate, no matter what the u.s. does. obama, the pentagon, the nytimes, etc., etc. anybody looking at a few basic facts, knows this is inevitable. but they cannot admit it. why is that? even in terms of empire, the cost of afghanistan appears greater than any possible reward.
how much rationality to attribute to the dim bulbs running the show?
yes - the usa "doesn't do retreat" -- and that is its SUPREME STUPIDITY.
as patrick buchanan says:
"WE SHOULD GET OUT OF THIS BUSINESS OF EMPIRE......we didn't like it when the Soviet Union was in our neighborhood (cuba) .......so........what are WE doing in Russia's neighborhood? (oil gas, resources of course) ...WE SHOULD GET OUT OF THOSE LANDS..........BEFORE THEY KICK US OUT".
americans seem to never learn:
as a vietnamese saying went:
ALL foreign invaders EVENTUALLY are repelled.
Now I get it, you're a Buchanan fan.
What a DOPE ! There are some things Buchanan just so happens to be correct on such as shutting off illegal immigration and stopping these fruitless wars ! Man, just get the fuck outta here and go serve in Afghanistan for buddy Barry !!
Yeah, and Hitler liked puppies.
see....Joehope -- this is what I mean:
Dennis Duncan for example states that there are "correct" positions of Buchanan, citing his dislike of "illegal immigrants"...
to me that is not as "clear cut" a situation just because the CURRENT laws happen to be the deciders of what is "illegal" in terms of understanding WHY there are illegal immigrants -- which if one thinks hard -- is ALSO a consequence of the USA's OWN decades of policies of meddling in the affairs of others nations to the point that their people become desperate from the suppression of their economies and -- as is only INSTINCTIVE -- they will go for "greener pastures" -- meaning.....
the NATION that MEDDLED with THEM and DECLARED itself with its presence in THEIR countries for its POWEr , its prosperity, its "desirability" ....
so -- where DO those "illegals" go?
to the nation that PLANTED ITSELF in THEIR backyards and caused many of their own citizens to lose their countries sovereighnty.
buchanan KNOWS this ...and that is one reason why he detests EMPIRE MEDDLING by the USA ..but at the same time his own nativism -- the idea that america is for "ANGLO SAXON ORDER" is something i clearly do not agree with .
YET - i admire the CLARITY that he shows in distinguishing between his PREFERENCE for what america ought to be domestically "america for americans" -- whatever his definition of that is --
and his preference that america STOP meddling in the affairs of other nations BECAUSE:
if buchanan maintains that "america for americanS" -- at LEAST he is ALSO willing to state that "RUSSIA FOR RUSSIANS".,....
China for "CHINESE".....etc etc etc....and doesn't MIX things up.
as he said:
"when the USSR was in our neighborhood....we didn't like it......so ........what are WE doing in Russia's neighborhood? ..when the USSR collapsed - and gorbachev AGREED to DISMANTLE the Warsaw Pact and WE promised to NOT expand NATO to Russia's borders....we RENEGED on that promise....we created "orange revolutions" , we dismembered Serbia and sided with croats and albanians IN serbia and gave them provinces that traditionally WERE serbian - because we KNEW serbian SLAVES were related to Russia -- and we KNEW that russia was WEAKENED and could only watch as WE with NATO thumbed our noses at Russia....and then we egged on GEORGIA to be in russia's craw...even if the provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia traditionaly have Russian ETHNIC majorities who ALWAYS wanted to belong to Russia.....and then we continued to surround russia with nato ..and the missile defense claiming IRAN can reach POLAND and CZECHOSLOVAKIA with missiles -- while our MISSILES are only scores of miles away FROM RUSSIA .......and we are surprised that PUTIN and RUSSIA express paranoia?
Doesn't THEN PUTIN have a POINT?"
i do NOT agree with plenty of Buchanan's positions....
but in THIS matter of American Empire -- of being CONSISTENT about his "america first" with "leave other countries to run themselves" -- is something we HAVE to acknowledge to HIS credit. something which "liberals" themselves can barely aspire to .
Bravo, sir....
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
not as you think , Joehope.
please don't mistake me:
I do often quote those things by buchanan even if i detest his "rightist" positions..for which he is also quite clear are about what he wants the USA to be LIKE (tax cuts, small government, privatizing, get rid of that social security, the usual....) .. BUT whether as a rightist or leftist or otherwise ...he IS correct , as we would ourselves agree if we just gave credit to the statements and principles of "NON EMPIRE" themselves -- whether they come from buchanan or others.
imo -- he IS to be given credit regardless of his philosophical positions on what the USA ought to be as a nation -- for the fact that he states much the same thing as those we would agree with on "NON EMPIRE" ...and in fact in no less clarity than so-called liberals or even so-called "antiwar" folks.
he minces no words about these matter on America's constant MEDDLING in the affairs of other nations ..and states it DIRECTLY as ..i would put it : MEDDLING IN ORDER TO DOMINATE and DICTATE and BECOME an EMPIRE .
i admire that directness and this is also because he backs it up with a knowledge of the history of these regions .
so - yes -- i am a "fan" of the fact that HE -- SOMEONE says those things as directly as can be ....DESPITE my disagreement with his economics philosophy and social philosophy (one of which is his "nativism" and anti-immigrant postures).
The US military has retreated many times; Somalia, Beirut, Bay of Pigs, Operation Eagle Claw.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
true enuff, of course it's more complex than my little scenario. problem is we never let cuba live that down, and we are still in somalia, primarily thru our ethiopian proxies (funny how CD never has anything about the u.s. in somalia. maybe one horror show too many. check out chris-floyd.com for the abominable details).
the myths we tell ourselves about our military superiority and about how god-awful important afghanistan is to u.s. "security" have something to do w/it.
Ethiopia pulled out to just across the border. I believe Somalia has gone back to the more peaceful Sharia rule( for much of the country).
For all his education and intelligence, Mr. Obama is apparently not capable of learning anything about Asia and the Mideast. He's stepped into an echo chamber filled with the sounds of people who have learned nothing and are not capable of doing anything other than what they have done for the last sixty years.
Look to yourselves. The American government will not do the right thing.
If Obama makes Peace there is a great diminishment of violence.
Maybe, in the spirit of bipartisan compromise, Obama can be persuaded to divert those 17,000 troops from Afghanistan and instead deploy them in a "surge" at Little Big Horn.
No More Mister Nice Guy!
· Yr Obd't Servant
Primary to this whole conflict is if the USA had not armed the Mujahaddeen the Marxist government most likely would have defeated the ractionary forces and we would be looking at a progressive prosperous Afghanistan. The Marxists were attemting land reform and womens equality. I know Marxism has a poor record of success, but it could have worked especially if it became moderated through indigenous and Soviet influences.We simply do not know. What we do know is we drew in the Soviets and started 30 years of war and the collapse of safety and rights for women.
Where does Bruhns get off criticizing the Pakistanis for protecting their sovereignty, airspace and citizens?
Where does Bruhns get off criticizing Pakistan for making Peace; when you cannot defeat an adversary except by totally destroying your country you make Peace.
A coalition government with Taliban who control 72% of Afghanistan is the solution.
More Karzai steps up to defend his people from the USA more the USA whines how corrupt he is. The USA is the model for terrorism and corruptness.
GF: " The more Karzi steps up to defend his people from the USA the more the USA whines how corrupt he is ". Yeah if Karzi is not careful, he could lose his status as our puppet, thug and become their thug.The whore media is demonizing his brother as a major drug dealer in Afghanistan, and whether true or not, why are we being told this now after all these years?
Karzai should be reminded of what happened to Saddam Hussein.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
WTF 12:57 ------ What should Karzai be killed for?
I read on WayneMadsenReport... (Ex NSA whistleblower)...
That Karzai, in addition to being a Unocal exec and CIA asset, is also a member of the Pashtun " royalty" who enjoy the carnal pleasures of young boys (ceremonial dancers)( just like J. Edgar Hoover)... And that pedophilia is a discrete yet acceptable cultural norm of the Pushtun "royalty"...
Um.... For secretly co-operating and funding Pashtun warlords in their global-wide terrorist attacks on innocent people and democracies everywhere!
Think I'll get a job as speech writer in the White House? ;)
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.