We can no more win in Afganistan than we could in Vietnam.

Both Kabul and Saigon are/were corrupt governments propped up by American bayonets. Neither government could win the "hearts and minds" of the people. The freedom fighters in both have widespread support in fighting against the foreign(American) occupation of their lands.

There will be no victory until we bring our troops home.

As always, thankfully; Helen BLAZES!

"And he has done so without a whiff of domestic political protest. There are no visible peace makers, no loud protesters chanting "how many kids did you kill today?"-- those painful anti-Vietnam war slogans Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon were forced to endure daily in the late 1960s and early 1970s."

Maybe Helen ought to ask him herself. I usually see her in the front row at press conferences. She knows damn well the protesters are there but never seen because the media is complicit and colluding by only showing what the Powers That Be want shown. You can't get near the White House or anywhere else that Obama appears. Helen has even argued about press control with the press secretary. Why then act like nobody's protesting when it really is that no news media is allowed to cover protests?

In her career Helen has seen just about everything and reported on events clearly and honestly. She refers to the numbers in the protests today, earlier, during VN the protests were enormous and happening every day in every part of the country. Our little Afghan war has lasted almost as long as WW1 and WW2 together. Afghan has been a war with someone for generations. Whole generations who know nothing but war. Hard to imagine that and hard to imagine why we have to be the ones to stay the course and ensure that a couple of more generations will have the chance to know of nothing else but war, that is if we stop bombong wedding parties.

and in what other world would dick cheney have not already been indicted? amazing that he is allowed to roam freely in the same country that initiated the nuremberg trials and supposedly lives under the nuremberg principles. no need to expect consistency, as i'd be daily dissapointed.

If Obama cannot learn from the lessons of Vietnam, he is bound to repeat the mistakes from that debacle that besmirched two presidents.

LBJ and Nixon were only "besmirched". But they got out alive and in one piece. The same will hold true for His Excellency, The Great Obama. If he were told he had sacrifice his life in order to bring America's gift of freedom, democracy and liberty to the Afghans, we'd be out of Afghanistan by sundown. Obama is a sniveling COWARD, as were George Wanker Bush and Cheesedick Cheney before him.

Helen Thomas is pushing the party line: Oh, there was a good reason for invading Afghanistan but the dirty wogs are unworthy of further US effort because of their corruption, and there is no domestic protest because all of US know we is good good good, hyuk hyuk hyuk.

"This war looks like an expensive, endless gopher hole where we can pour our blood and our treasure that could be used to help the Afghan poor and the American people suffering from job loss and poverty."

She is being polite. It should read

"This war is an expensive, endless gopher hole where we can pour our blood and our treasure that could be used to help the Afghan poor and the American people suffering from job loss and poverty."

The people doing the actual dying and killing are not the ones profiting from it. The war profiteers are safely ensconsced in their plush offices across the seas.

What a f--king racket this whole thing is. We are killing the people we went out to "help" at the cost of our young lives. But who cares for the poor whether be they Afghans or Americans.

I wonder...were the Russians and British trying to route out Al Qaeda and Taliban too (obviously a rhetorical question)? Isn't that why the US is there? Or did they have their own cover stories for their real agenda, which was oil. Why would three superpowers be interested in a the SAME parking lot? How about let's drop the "we're at war" crap and be honest: there's no war going on, there's no big terror network. There's no meaning to "declare victory". We invaded, just like Russia and Britain before.

I suspect that Hearst heavily edited this story. For example:

"The reason we have fighting forces in Afghanistan is that, 10 years ago, it was a failed state where the 9/11 plotters could practice their evil in a vacuum, without fear of local authorities."

This is a deception. For starters, ten years is the wrong timeline; it should be closer to eight. Eight years ago the Taliban WAS the government and had sent a delegation to the United States to negotiate over pipelines (I think Unocal was one of the players). When the U.S. demanded that they turn over Osama bin Laden, the Taliban said, if you show us sufficient evidence of his culpability we will turn him over to a neutral third country. Dubya said screw you and launched his invasion.

Today, Afghanistan is far more a "failed state" than it was eight years ago, which is probably the way the U.S. really likes it. There sure is a lot of money changing hands, with American (and many others to a lesser extent) contractors in the grease up to their elbows. 9/11 has nothing to do with our current presence there. It was only the initiating pretext for what has become a self-perpetuating boondoggle worth billions to far too many crooks and so what if a few peasant wedding parties get bombed. I don't know those peasants. Do you know those peasants?

What's that old appalachian expression: "keep 'em barefoot and pregnant," then bomb 'em.

I could further dissect this article. An important item:

"By taking time and seeking opinion from all sides, this president actually looks careful and deliberate, compared to his predecessor, who rushed to invade Iraq under wrong pretexts."

"Wrong" is the wrong term here and I think Helen Thomas knows that. Minimally, the correct term is "false." "Wrong" suggests that Dubya just made a stupid mistake when he intentionally lied to the American people and the world and invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003. I'd bet Helen let that one go through just so she could get her main point across, that Obamabot isn't ""dithering" and afraid to make a decision," as his enemies are claiming. There is a lot at stake here and she knows it as well as anyone. And boy am I not apologizing for either Helen or Hearst here. This is really bad journalism but worth showing up on CD, for what it is.

-30-

Look - the moral arguments are moot. They haven't worked since illegal invasion Day 1, and they ain't working now, and they never will.

If you tell GE that we're declaring Peace but that they will continue to make X War Profits, they will stop lobbying for more perpetual illegal military action.

It's way past time we libs/progs grow the f**k up and start beating them at their own game, instead of trying to convince them how 'wrong' they are.

We're paying Big War Profiteer anyway - now, however, BWP contracts will be for solar panels and magic energy juice, not bunker busters and hollow points. It's win-win - we get lots of shit we need, and the Big War Profiteer lobby goes by-by.

Instead, ladies and gentlemen, I present Big Peace Profiteer.

And another clause of all BPP contracts: all Vets are offered jobs first.

Either we pay Big War Profiteer to make love and not death, or we keep 'hoping' that the BWPs will suddenly 'hear us' and start putting people before profits (which would, in fact, be illegal.)

We need more Blackwater people in Afghanistan. If these people can soak up all the the money that is making it into Afghanistan via corruption, their employees will have lots of excess money to send home and their families can help stimulate our economy. "Graft the new economic stimulus."

helen if your reading this thank you from the bottom
of my heart. i've been a huge fan of yours for years.
do you have a protege that you have been training
that will do the right thing after you retire?
someone who won't take any bs from the white house?
someone who won't back down from them when things
get tough? i would say god bless you but i no longer
believe the evidence against is over whelming!

"By taking time and seeking opinion from all sides, this president actually looks careful and deliberate . . . "

Ah, Helen is careful. She would like to give Mr. 0bama room to which he might retreat.

The operative word here is "looks."

Hey, the president sounds more careful than his predecessor, too.

So?

The people 0bama works for will be happy to purchase a Republican's services in 2012. It'll probably cost them less. They will not let him retreat just because Ms. Thomas has carefully awarded him a spot, though I applaud her consideration.

They need to have the impression that significant hell will break loose and cost them something if he does not.

Helen, have you heard anything about a p i p e l i n e in Afghanistan??

The mark of a true leader is to put the welfare of his people ahead of his own. We will see if Obama is a leader or just the empty suit he appears to be. If he vacillates and/or sends more troops he is nothing but the elitist whore he appears to be and doesn't give a damn about the American people. If he pulls out unilaterally, sticking a finger in the eye of the Zionists, the Oil companies and the bankers who all profit so handsomely from the tragedy in Afghanistan. And also hand a huge cache of partisan ammunition to his opponents then he is a leader and an honourable man because he did the right and decent thing for the American people. We shall then see the true colour of his stripes.

Helen Thomas has, as usual, got it right!!!! Declare victory and leave--or WHATEVER!

We cannot AFFORD this (or any) war in either financial or human costs! How is it that people are bellyaching about America not being able to afford decent healthcare for its own citizens because it COSTS TOO MUCH--yet never once, complain about the COSTS OF WAR????

GET REAL PEOPLE!!!! And let's listen to people who have knowledge of the culture and politics in Afghanistan, like Ambassador Eikenberry! General McChrystal knows about making war--period!!! That is his job. He is not an expert in the history and culture of Afghanistan, and is not expected to be. Eikenberry has had long experience in Afghanistan and is a brilliant thinker. I hope President Obama LISTENS to him!!!!

The only victory as others have pointed out, are the big oil companies that the Bush/Chaney families are a part of, and thousands have died, because of the greed for the money the oil pipe line will bring them, not the ones who are killing, and being killed. Gates, and McChrystal are a part of the Bush/ Chaney gang and time for Obama to what he intended, and get out. He should also stand up to Israel.

Dear Helen Thomas

Get on your computer and go to Google, then Hit
"Afghanistan proposed pipeline". There you will see
the facts including Exxon, Unocal and the others, then
you could write another different story..

South Asia
Nov 20, 2009

Page 1 of 2
TALIBAN TAP INTO AFGHANISTAN'S ROOTS

By Brian M Downing

Discussion of Afghanistan policy is not being conducted with an adequate understanding of the insurgency there. Insurgents are considered akin to a crime syndicate that has expanded its influence through intimidation and violence, or to a religious cult that spreads through hortatory oration. These views are partly true but will not contribute to sound policy. The insurgents have expanded rapidly over the past few years because they offer compelling answers to unaddressed concerns.

Opposition to the Western presence
Foremost among these concerns, paradoxically enough to Westerners who see themselves as neutral mentors, is the extended presence of foreigners. Linguistic, cultural, geographic and tribal obstacles have prevented a unifying nationalism, but common experiences of foreign invasion and tribal warfare have

left an abiding suspicion of foreigners. That outlook has led to common purpose in expelling intruders - the British or Russians or an adjacent tribe - but loss of unity and a return to localism soon followed.

Nonetheless, after decades of war and the ouster of the Taliban in 2001, most Afghans welcomed help from Westerners. They were seen, if only quite warily, as agents of stability and growth. Eight years on, with little stability or growth, the welcome is disappearing. Traditional suspicions are falling on Western powers, and the insurgents are winning over district after district.

Western aid workers enter a region with the best of intentions, but are off-putting to elders and notables. Westerners carry an unmistakable confidence in their way of doing things. Youthful ones speak with elders as equals, or perhaps with a facade of deference. Projects are planned in accordance with engineering and agronomical principles, not local custom. The benefits of a project cannot be clearly known, but the estimates of workers and the expectations of locals will almost always diverge. Right and wrong here are not relevant; the impact on local sensibilities is.

The number of foreigners on a project today is much higher than in previous counter-insurgencies. When a French captain was seeking to win the support of Algerians in his area of control, he could have an irrigation ditch dug or a schoolroom built simply by calling in a small engineering detachment. Such projects today involve platoons of aid workers, embassy liaisons, consultants, security forces, public relations officials, reporters from many countries, and so on. The necessity of so many personnel is dubious; their impact on local opinion is not.

Development programs take a long time to begin, let alone come to completion - if they ever do. Bureaucratic plodding, inter-agency turf wars, banditry, corruption and warlords all take a toll on timeliness. Insurgent attacks on development projects, especially schools, are both well known and relevant here, but many insurgent groups permit projects to go on, if only to position themselves to take partial credit for them.

Large numbers of often haughty development workers and the delays in completing many projects leave the impression, eight years after their arrival, that Westerners have become another occupying force. Resentment builds, as do insurgent condemnations and entreaties, as do attachments of local men to insurgent bands.

Western militaries have also played an important, if not leading, role in developing antipathy toward foreigners. Some North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries, owing to their prominent colonial pasts, have long if distant experience with counter-insurgency and civil operations.

This article is fluff.
In fact the wars and the pipelines and the rest of it are the smallest of the issues and problems.
They are the smallest of the world's problems.
The USA is the problem. The pirate ship USA is involved in grand larceny on an international scale and all Americans are justifiably responsible. The sentence for grand larceny was death.
Sorry for the serious words but these are interesting time.
The USA will be stopped. If it is not stopped by others, and it is the last standing, it will have thereby stopped in self-destruction. We have to succeed before there is too much damage.
The ICC is going to be very busy.

U.S. IS DOING NO GOOD IN AFGHANISTAN

By Malalai Joya

Special to the Mercury News
Posted: 11/10/2009 08:00:00 PM PST

As an Afghan woman who was elected to Parliament, I am in the United States to ask President Barack Obama to immediately end the occupation of my country.

Eight years ago, women's rights were used as one of the excuses to start this war. But today, Afghanistan is still facing a women's rights catastrophe. Life for most Afghan women resembles a type of hell that is never reflected in the Western mainstream media.

In 2001, the U.S. helped return to power the worst misogynist criminals, such as the Northern Alliance warlords and druglords. These men ought to be considered a photocopy of the Taliban. The only difference is that the Northern Alliance warlords wear suits and ties and cover their faces with the mask of democracy while they occupy government positions. But they are responsible for much of the disaster today in Afghanistan, thanks to the U.S. support they enjoy.

The U.S. and its allies are getting ready to offer power to the medieval Taliban by creating an imaginary category called the "moderate Taliban" and inviting them to join the government. A man who was near the top of the list of most-wanted terrorists eight years ago, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, has been invited to join the government.

Over the past eight years the U.S. has helped turn my country into the drug capital of the world through its support of drug lords. Today, 93 percent of all opium in the world is produced in Afghanistan. Many members of Parliament and high
Advertisement
ranking officials openly benefit from the drug trade. President Karzai's own brother is a well known drug trafficker.

Meanwhile, ordinary Afghans are living in destitution. The latest United Nations Human Development Index ranked Afghanistan 181 out of 182 countries. Eighteen million Afghans live on less than $2 a day. Mothers in many parts of Afghanistan are ready to sell their children because they cannot feed them.

Afghanistan has received $36 billion of aid in the past eight years, and the U.S. alone spends $165 million a day on its war. Yet my country remains in the grip of terrorists and criminals. My people have no interest in the current drama of the presidential election since it will change nothing in Afghanistan. Both Karzai and Dr. Abdullah are hated by Afghans for being U.S. puppets.

The worst casualty of this war is truth. Those who stand up and raise their voice against injustice, insecurity and occupation have their lives threatened and are forced to leave Afghanistan, or simply get killed.

We are sandwiched between three powerful enemies: the occupation forces of the U.S. and NATO, the Taliban and the corrupt government of Hamid Karzai.

Now President Obama is considering increasing troops to Afghanistan and simply extending former President Bush's wrong policies. In fact, the worst massacres since 9/11 were during Obama's tenure. My native province of Farah was bombed by the U.S. this past May. A hundred and fifty people were killed, most of them women and children. On Sept. 9, the U.S. bombed Kunduz Province, killing 200 civilians.

My people are fed up. That is why we want an immediate end to the U.S. occupation.

MALALAI JOYA spoke at San Jose State University Saturday and signed copies of her new political memoir, A Woman Among Warlords, co-written with Derrick O"Keefe. The survivor of four assassination attempts, she was elected to Afghanistan"s parliament in 2005 and kicked out in 2007 by the warlords. She wrote this article for the Mercury News.

The media either distort or bury anything that the Masters of the Universe don't want us to know about, but surely Obama himself comes to us unfiltered? If he continues to support the war, knowing whom it benefits (the oil industry) and whom it injures and destroys (our soldiers and the Afghan people), then he should tell us so. But if his conscience tells him he knows we are murderers and thieves, then that's what he should tell us.

O's decision to send or not to send more troops should not be based on what the Republicans will say about him and how it will affect his chances to have a second term. The argument that it would be cowardly to leave Afghanistan now is a false and mischievious one. Like everything else the right-wing in Congress and their ignorant public say and do, that argument ought to be countered by O and his staff and what's left of the honest media loudly and often. We'll see what O decides and we'll know whom he serves.

This article mentions a "failed state" which got me thinking about the definition of such. What is a failed state? Many years ago Afghanistan had a king who acted as the glue that held the various tribal societies together as a form of unity. After the removal of the king and the dismantling of the monarchy there was no further glue, there were simply various tribes and various warlords. The strongest of these managed to cobble together a system of government that was loose and which enhanced their individual powers over various separate areas of the entity known as Afghanistan. It has ever been so since the early days. The Taliban while not our kind of people were the strongest political entity 10 years ago and had a severe system of sharia working in the area we call Afghanistan. They were not universally loved by the inhabitants and their ideology was medieval in nature but they were homegrown. How they governed was none of our business and even their rise to power had a lot to do with big imperial nations military interference in their affairs. They were not al queda and they were not responsible for 911 and the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan had absolutely nothing to do with the capture of Osama bin Laden. How do I conjecture this? Easy, he has not been sought after or brought to justice in almost 10 years. If the US had really wanted him he would have been found and imprisoned by now.