Recently I saw on television a member of al-Qaeda declaring that they had lost all their leaders , pictures appeared on the screen of terrorist who have been caught or killed, then I heard him say that they( the terrorist) were out of money .Sounded to me like America won the war. I did not believe it but it made me think, what now? If we did win and all the terrorist were dead and broke and could not attack us again is that the end of terrorism or will new terrorist form new armies and the circle of violence goes on and on. Do Americans think that we can win over the hearts and minds of the poor people of Afghanistan and Pakistan by dropping bombs from drones killing their fathers, mothers, children and destroying their homes and work places just to get a few bad guys.Who are the bad guys?Most reasonable people would say those who drop bombs from drones and the ones who order the violence.

While I certainly don't relish the idea of sudden and total economic collapse of my own country, knowing that I have no viable out, nor do most of my friends and family -- what is the alternative? Can somebody tell me? Are we, the citizenry, going to organize en masse and insist on sane and competent leadership that will put a stop to this out of control debt financed nightmare of genocidal madness?

I think not -- not as long as the criminally insane behind-the-scenes Zio-zealots who own and run the U.S./Israeli alliance from Hell are able to maintain their virtual lock on almost all major U.S. news and entertainment media. When you can tightly control the information that a vast majority of a populace sees, it follows that you can also control their opinions and attitudes.

If we don't somehow find a way to break their total lock on information flow (our tenuous footing on the World Wide Web will NOT be enough), we lose. We simply MUST devise, develop, or commandeer an effective vehicle by which to reach the masses or it's GAME OVER.

Norman Solomon wrote:

"A few times since last fall, the Obama team has floated rising numbers for how many additional U.S. soldiers will be sent to Afghanistan. Now, deployment of 21,000 more is a done deal, with a new total cap of 68,000 U.S. troops in that country.

...

Lots of recent spin from Washington has promoted the assumption that President Obama wants to stick with the current limit on deployments to Afghanistan. Soon after pushing supplemental war funds through Congress, he's hardly eager to proclaim that 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan may not be enough after all."

IF I recall correctly about what Admiral Mullen said in a very recent video report, the U.S. has 70,000 troops already in Afghanistan; not 68,000. But maybe I'm mistaken.

Norman Solomon then wrote:

"... It would be astonishing if plans for add-on deployments weren't already far along at the Pentagon."

Definitely! It would be rather very astounding.

The capitalist economy produces a ruling class, a handful of men who wield dictatorial power and are accorded material privilege beyond all reason. Karl Marx called them the bourgeoisie. Capitalism demands unity among this small group based solely on an absolute allegiance to profits. That unity will not be undermined by nationalism, or racism, or anything as silly as sentiment or mysticism. Patriotism and religious belief are for chumps who fight and die in their wars for profit.

Former President George W. Bush was a prop of the bourgeoisie and Barack Obama has now assumed that same role. The transition from one to the other has been seamless in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world.

frank1569 states: On the other hand, if I were on the other side, I'd be working on ways to increase military operations everywhere, with the hope that something big blows up, forcing some sort of industrial production increase as well as a draft situation to suck up a couple million unemployed off the streets...

that is key. since history is doomed to repeat itself, all we need to wait for is another black thursday. that one is obviously in the works. so all you unemployed, get ready for the draft. at least you'll have a job for the next real world war. really.

Despite what former Secretary of State Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski says:

Besides the futility of trying to make the Afghanistan into an image of ourselves, the total compromising of their national sovereignty and the continued radicalization of both the intent and methods of the opposition ( delaying real democratic and economic reforms like it did in Vietnam for decades) the involvement of NATO ( especially in conjunction with other moves farther to the West) presents special difficulties in terms of our long term relations with Russia..

Continuing efforts to expand the size and mission of NATO, even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, trying to incorporate all of the former Soviet Block countries of Eastern Europe into the E.U.and meddling in SouthWest Asia on a military rather than strictly cooperative commercial -Russian-E.U.-U.S basis is a distinct betrayal of the single greatest legacy of the Reagan Administration and is going to cause countless troubles and expenses in the not too distant future, preventing comprehensive ballistic missle treaties at the very least, but harming the economic interersts of all parties on a global basis for decades to come.

Obama is following the Clinton agenda. This is a disaster.

"Soon after pushing supplemental war funds through Congress, he's hardly eager to proclaim that 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan may not be enough after all."

March 19 2009,

"Obama Considers Expanding Afghanistan Troop Level To 400,000"

http://blog.puppetgov.com/2009/03/19/obama-plans-vastly-expanded-afghan-security-force/

On another article on CD today Jane Hamsher asked a rhetorical question, "Why Can’t a Better Health Care Plan Be the Next Stimulus?"

I'll tell you one reason: Because there is no price to pay for selling out.

Next election cycle CDs pages will be filled with article, after article by the likes of Norman Solomon, John Nichols, The Nation and their ilk imploring us to: "Vote for the Democrats because the dreaded Republicans are coming!!! Just like they did last time.

Then in 2013, we can spend our time reading article, after article, written by the same crew, lamenting the choice.

Sometimes NS forgets that the USA is owned and operated by the top corporations. Sen. Durbin, any comment? "Frankly, they own the place." Thank you.

Now, if peace were declared and we split the Mid East, the last sector of our economy still churning - the 'defense industry' - would collapse. Another million unemployed, state budgets would crash, etc.

Plus, peace would mean about a million US military personnel also discharged - and unemployed.

On the other hand, if I were on the other side, I'd be working on ways to increase military operations everywhere, with the hope that something big blows up, forcing some sort of industrial production increase as well as a draft situation to suck up a couple million unemployed off the streets...

Can someone please explain how a D majority in both houses and Obama white house is any diffferent than an R Congress and R white house when it comes to foreign policy? And I mean policy action not window-dressing.

I wonder how many it'll take this time? 20,000? 50,000? A hundred thousand dead American troops. How many Afghans? A couple million? More? And for what? Does this country ever learn a lesson? This will continue until at some point the U.S. either runs out of creditors (i'ts already out of money) willing to finance more fascism or until the country at some point gets a damned good ass kicking.

The phrase "light at the end of the tunnel" died in Vietnam, along with 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese. So what is Obimbo going to replace it with? Because he's going to need some bullshit catch phrase like it to flim flam Americans into believing the debacle in Afghanistan has finally turned the corner and Victory is now in sight.

Thank you very much for this article.

The first news on BBC World shown yesterday, July 8, on PBS, was the escalating war in Afghanistan and the fact that day was one of the deadliest days for the British and American forces since the war started eight years ago.

Eager to learn more about this bloody day in a war that is soon becoming "Obama's" war, I switched to other respectable American news organizations. Not one word was said about the war in Afghanistan, except on NPR where an American military leader was quoted saying that the Afghan war was going swimmingly and there was no need for more American troops, since the Afghans were increasing their forces.
It was interesting to hear, since on BBC the British generals were complaining about the fact that the Afghan security forces were way too small and inefficient.

if the numbers in yesterday's article by a. davies here on c.d. are correct - i.e. 600,000 "security forces" in iraq and an ever-growing 260,000 already in afpak - then it's only a matter of time before mullen's comment that "There is not a ceiling on troop levels in Afghanistan" translates into the mic's much anticipated draft re-instatement.

already, we are a country that cannot provide affordable health care for it's citizens as well as for the fools who buy into the mic's great promise of becoming an elite member of the world's most heavily subsidized killing machine. the downhill slide continues.

You would think that the oil co. inc. oh I mean the usa government would be happy now that they have the oil pipeline across Afghanistan.
How is it that the Amerikan military machine feels the need to kill people just to test the weapons they have? Meantime the empire is bleeding the death of a thousand cuts. Just what is the realistic reason for taking over this country and killing these people? Obama and his team I think have underestimated these afagain people. They take issue with having new white masters and are some mean sobs.
Some people have said that we need to strangle the beast by not buying anything. I have thought that a start would be to just stop shopping on sunday. This could be supported by the church goers and the anti war people and would be a step towards taking the money out of the dragons pockets. And might even help the family life. I can remember when Mothers stayed home and we had real families.
OR we should just put a smiley face on the flag and become the red white and blue and yellow. This would show the colors of the world bully!!!

"We're facing the historic imperative of keeping McCain out of the White House. If major progressive change is going to be feasible during the next several years, defeating McCain in November is necessary. And insufficient. The insufficiency does not negate the necessity.

Under a McCain presidency, we'd be back to the square one where we've found ourselves since January 2001. Putting Obama in the White House would not by any means ensure progressive change, but under his presidency the grassroots would have an opportunity to create it.

Along the way, let's strive to eliminate disillusionment by dispensing with illusions. No one who is a presidential candidate can proceed to overcome corporate power or the warfare state. The pervasive and huge problems that have proved to be so destructive are deep, structural and embedded in the political economy. The changes most worth believing in are the ones that social movements can make possible." - Norman Soloman, Obama Delegate to the DNC, July 10, 2008

-Just basic lesser-evilism which ultimately is evil. Unlike Chomski, who also said Obama was preferable to McCain, but didn't campaign for him, Solomon went to bat for Obama.

Erroll succinctly summarizes the problem with all too many liberals. Like Solomon, they can be very perceptive about the depredations of the Democrats, yet when it comes time to vote, they cast their ballots for them every time. Since the alternative is unthinkable (Repugs), and third parties are never taken seriously by MSM or the liberal elites, all we ever get is yet another warmongering Democrat to replace the warmongering Republican every liberal rightly despises.

We are completely trapped in this feedback loop. The liberal Nader-haters have become even MORE vociferous in their bashing of Ralph since Obama's true allegiances have been gradually revealed--to the military, to perpetual war, to imperialism, to Wall Street, to Big Pharma and Insurance and a certain-to-fail health care "package", to anything BUT progressive values and positions on the issues. Now that Obama is clearly just another pawn of the Right, somehow it's all Nader's fault, just for existing, it seems.

Norman Solomon, who wrote the book and produced the incisive documentary War Made Easy, recognizes that Obama may very well escalate the number of troops in Afghanistan just as LBJ did id Vietnam. But this should come as no surprise to Solomon since Obama made no secret of the fact that he believed that the United States was fighting the "wrong war" in Iraq and should have been concentrating its efforts on the "right war" in Afghanistan. Instead of lamenting what Obama is now doing, even though Obama was signaling his intentions during the 2008 campaign, Solomon should have been supporting a third party antiwar candidate. Solomon saw the signs early on but, despite having written a book and made a film which showed how a Democrat named Lyndon Johnson boldly escalated the war in Vietnam, Solomon illogically chose to place his faith in a Democratic candidate. Perhaps Obama beguiled Solomon as he fooled so many other Americans. But Solomon's supposed naivete is undermined by a film which he made-War Made Easy- which demonstrated that politicians such as the Democratic Johnson will stop at nothing in order to get their way. And now we find Obama following in the footsteps of LBJ, a fact which Solomon seems to belatedly and finally recognize.

The United States is a militaristic and imperial force.

This is how such forces act.

This will only end when it collapses of its own stupidity, greed, and blunders.

Looks to me like it is well along that road.