Obama puts brake on Afghan surge

[IndianaGreen]

Source: The Times

From The Sunday Times

February 8, 2009

Obama puts brake on Afghan surge

Sarah Baxter and Michael Smith

PRESIDENT Barack Obama has demanded that American defence chiefs review their strategy in Afghanistan before going ahead with a troop surge.

There is concern among senior Democrats that the military is preparing to send up to 30,000 extra troops without a coherent plan or exit strategy.

The Pentagon was set to announce the deployment of 17,000 extra soldiers and marines last week but Robert Gates, the defence secretary, postponed the decision after questions from Obama.

The president was concerned by a lack of strategy at his first meeting with Gates and the US joint chiefs of staff last month in “the tank”, the secure conference room in the Pentagon. He asked: “What’s the endgame?” and did not receive a convincing answer.


Read more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5683681.ece

[ZombieHorde]

1. Good news! I hope its true. nt

[pasto76]

16. anyone schooled in ICS.....?

Part of any incident requires a De-mobilization plan to be developed in the beginning stages, concurrent to operations and plans.

Im SO glad we have a CIC with a head not filled with CS gas.

[Squatch]

19. No, this is BAD news. B-A-D

As somebody actually in Afghanistan fighting this war on a daily basis, we *NEED* those extra BCTs over here ASAP. They would take the fight away from the population centers and allow the ANSF a chance to grow proficient.

[IndianaGreen]

22. From what I heard, the new troops were to be deployed around Kabul

They are fearful of losing control of Kabul.

[Squatch]

26. That's incorrect.

Kabul is in no threat of capitulating. The population in Kabul is fairly socially moderate compared to the tribal Pashtuns of Kandahar and Helmand, where the Taliban have more of a willing audience.

[Still Sensible]

34. Hopefully this isn't a long delay, just a prudent

move to have a real plan. Good luck to you and enjoy your R & R Squatch.

[DallasNE]

71. Afghanistan Is No Iraq

I do applaud the belated effort to reach out to the tribal leaders rather than viewing them as the enemy. That is the one policy change that worked in Iraq and has a chance of success in Afghanistan as well. The one main difference is that Iraq had in al Sadr someone with the political power to call a cease fire and make it stick. This was undoubtedly the single most important event in Iraq that turned things around. And it was geared toward getting American troops withdrawn from Iraq by removing the excuse for keeping them there. You can't bake the cake without the sugar and that is what an attempt to replicate the surge in Iraq with a like surge in Afghanistan. That is why Obama's question was so critical and also why the General's didn't have an adequate response. There is no al Sadr counterpart in Afghanistan unless you count the Taliban and they are clearly not of a like mind.

[Hekate]

29. Hey Squatch, you stay safe, okay?

Nice to see a post from you again. Keep telling us, as best you can, what it looks like from the ground--and come home soon.

Hekate

[Squatch]

30. Hey, thanks!

I'm actually coming home next week for 2 weeks of R&R...can't wait to see my family!

[NeedleCast]

69. Glad you're getting a chance for a break

Afghanistan wasn't much fun. Keep your head down and stay safe.

[Zhade]

89. Agreed - stay safe, and try not to kill anyone.

Too many innocents have been murdered in this war already.

(I'm not saying YOU murdered them.)

[earcandle]

35. Oh NO. Another group making world cops?

Are we using government resources to put people in the
business of building global police forces of foreigners in
foreign lands? 

What the hell are we doing in Afghanistan?  Can somebody tell
us?  Obviously, no one can tell Obama.

I like him better. Don't get me wrong, I love Obama just like
the next guy, but I am more critical. And I like the forum
because people don't get unhinged when other people speak
their minds.  

Obama is making a good decision, and I hope he really does
tell us that we are investing in reconstruction rather than
war in Afghanistan.  Oh Yeah.  That is what I am talking
about.  

[Cherchez la Femme]

73. Why are we in there?

One word: Taliban.

No, we shouldn't play 'world cops', but the Taliban was directly involved in 9/11
If the Taliban regains its former position and power, there will be more

with their happy help.

Most of the Afghan people don't want the Taliban (flying kites a sin?!) so we should have broad support; however we've been dicking around in there for years (not to mention letting bin Laden escape) doing things at less than half-measures because, as Rummy said, 'there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan' :eyes:

Jeebus, with the money we spend on defense, we ought to be good at this; but to succeed at anything you need a good plan and follow it!

[Bragi]

79. Wrong

Just for accuracy sake, please note that not even Bush claimed that Taliban were "directly involved" in 9/11. The Bush allegation was that they gave sanctuary to al Qaeda, who did the job. There was never any suggestion (let alone evidence) that the Taliban was involved, or even knew of 9/11 ahead of time.

This is a bad war that can have no good outcome. The US and NATO should get out of there as quickly as possible. Let the Afghanis sort out their future.

- B

[Zhade]

90. Uh, no. They weren't.

NT!

[coalition_unwilling]

94. The Taliban was NOT directly involved in 9/11, unless you have

evidence that Colin Powell (in his infamously oft-promised but never-released 'dossier') has never provided???

Stop spreading lies. The Taliban may be reprehensible for many reasons, but culpability for 9/11 is NOT one of them.

[conturnedpro09]

44. Here, here! I agree.

And I thank you deeply for your service. You are now in the good hands of a good president. :patriot:

[bottomtheweaver]

51. What fight?

What do you imagine you're fighting for anyway? Not you personally of course, but us, the US. It's never been explained beyond the flimisiest of terra scares because the real reasons aren't remotely legal.

[ZombieHorde]

52. I see. nt

[w4rma]

65. The generals, that Bush put into power, btw, need to get a coherent plan together then. (nt)

[Cherchez la Femme]

72. As much as I'm against war

I have to agree with you...

as long as we're in Afghanistan, we need to do it right. Have a plan, do it right and get out of there. We need more soldiers, ours are in great danger of being overrun -and- the Taliban is regaining control of territory.

I wouldn't 'put brakes' on the surge, but I'd sure as hell ride the Pentagon's ass HARD to get their $hit together and do it right, which includes planning

[Zhade]

91. Do you apply that same flawed reasoning to Iraq?

I sure hope not.

[conturnedpro09]

93. Why?

Would you prefer leaving them to burn in choas if we can prevent it? n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

95. They used to say exactly the same thing about Vietnam, i.e., "As long as we're there,

we need to do it right."

Hint for you: read some Santayana, as in "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

[uppityperson]

92. Thought wouldn't reviewing the strategy be a good idea?

Make sure they have their act together and not just throw more bodies into the mix?

[Jefferson23]

104. First I just want to say, stay safe and all the best to you. I wondered

if you could confirm some analysis I heard recently on WBAI radio. In brief, this reporter was saying that in Afghanistan the recruitment level that is up for the Taliban is a direct result of the failed leadership of Karzai. That the corruption by the police under him is so bad that it is that frustration and anger, not ideology, that has increased Taliban's recruitment ability. She gave one example, a man who owns a auto body shop buys his parts in Pakistan, he has to pick them up by car and on his way back to Afghanistan he passes numerous check points erroneously set up by the police and is asked for bribes. The amount of money he has to spend to get through makes the journey almost completely useless for him. She also said that if there were to be more troops sent to Afghanistan, it would be in large part to protect the civilians primarily speaking. The more troops she said would allow for the use of less bombs, which would leave the infrastructure intact and of course less chance for loss of life to civilians in general. From what you have witnessed, does she have a point?

[LakeSamish706]

2. I hope this is true... Cause President Obama needs to end these wars.. Now.. n/t

[Enrique]

3. he must have gotten his latest Newsweek

[Pirate Smile]

8. I have not understood why people think we are all aware of the huge potential peril in Afghanistan

but Obama is clueless as to Afghanistan's nickname as the place where empires go to die.

Of course he knows all of that.

I don't know why anyone would think that we actually know more about the situation then he does.

I'm certainly not surprised that he wants to see an actual strategy and endgame instead of an open-ended, road to decades of fighting.

My comment isn't necessarily directed to you ( :hi: ), it is just about the running commentary that seems to treat Obama as a half-wit when it comes to the complications involved in Afghanistan and Pakistan. :)

[stillcool]

17. I think there are some highly qualified...

posters here that really should be ruling the world. Forget President, they are way over-qualified for that position. They know so much more, about so much more, than any person I have ever met. Not only that, these very same posters have never made a mistake in their entire life. They came out of the womb brilliant, with perfect parents, and perfect siblings, and have only associated with likewise perfect people! To top it off, they can predict the future about just about anything. I am in awe of such brilliance.

[Pirate Smile]

23. LOL. I've noticed that too.

:)

[clixtox]

43. Thank you! You got that right, as usual...

Kudos! Awesome! Brilliant post!!!

And be sure to include yourself, don't allow your natural modesty to stand in the way of your own earned and deserved accolade.

Actually there are a handful of DU posters I would possibly trust to run the world...

You know who you are because I like to occasionally recognize and thank those who are good writers, and take the time to attempt to educate those who would like to learn.

It is hard to imagine most of us, if given the chance, could screw it up any worse than the bozos currently running the world.

[elocs]

56. Well, you one upped me on this one. I've said that a DU panel should run the U.S.

with Obama as the puppet president, jumping through their hoops and parroting the wisdom of those who know all there is to be known. Yes, I too am in awe of those who are legends in their own minds and believe that every thought they think is perfection personified. Truly, who could stand before them.

[Jackpine Radical]

67. You realize that would give Skinner ultimate veto power.

The Power of the Pizza.

[Chulanowa]

33. I hope you're right

There's still a part of me coiled in terror that Obama's going to do something very, very regrettable in Afghanistan in order to show the Republicans that he has very large and hairy testicles.

It might not be an entirely rational line of though I suppose, but after over a decade of watching my party simper and fellate, I have worries.

[Left Coast2020]

32. In addition to having a President who clearly speaks the english,

language, we also have a President who reads. What an amazing difference a month makes (it would be nice to know if he reads this blog).

[coalition_unwilling]

97. I hope he reads my posts - n/t

[biopowertoday]

57. Glad to see he is stepping back rather than sticking with his Campaign promises.

[coalition_unwilling]

96. That is an awesome cover - n/t

[sandnsea]

4. Good. If you don't know your mission

and have a method of measuring the success of the mission, then you don't commit troops. He must be listening to John Kerry or Jim Webb or some combination.

[Bette Noir]

28. Or Sun Tzu. None of this is new.

[Xipe Totec]

5. Belicus interruptus

The generals must be in pain now...

[earcandle]

36. LOLOLOLOL!

[xchrom]

6. where is all the money going to come from?

all of these wars will end all right -- and that end -- if not planned will really be ugly.

[defendandprotect]

7. Good - and the Treasury is bankrupt -- possible depression or more ...

War is psychotic -- let's give it up-!

Let the PNAC finance their own wars ---

And let's begin to learn again how to live without oil ---

[Cass]

9. Sounds prudent to me.

Why send more troops (or any troops for that matter) without a clear objective? I am very grateful that he is carefully weighing his actions in this regard.

[RufusTFirefly]

10. Don't worry! Clean Coal will save us!!

I've seen it advertised on DU, so it must be good!

Al Gore: Clean Coal's like "healthy cigarettes."

[earcandle]

37. puke.... oops!

[inna]

11. good news!! thanks for this!

damn~! i'm starting to rely on the DU as my primary news source! you guys rock!! :)

[earcandle]

38. Me too!

[aquart]

12. He's finally getting it.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Obama is a quick study!

He just realized that it takes two to do the bipartisan tango, and he may just be realizing that Afghanistan is a lost cause.

[bemildred]

15. I think he always got it.

The downside is that in the unlikely event they come up with a coherent plan, he might go along. The upside is that the mindless gibbering fear that usually drives policy will be thwarted while he's in office.

[coalition_unwilling]

98. Whatever plan they come up with, be it coherent or otherwise, must

include the phrase "Light at the end of the tunnel"

:sarcasm:

[No Elephants]

113. "Will the last American out of Vietnam please turn out the light at the end of the tunnel?" That

was the line back then.

[aquart]

20. Whether we stay or go, there's going to be a lot more killing there.

[Pirate Smile]

25. It is actually terribly sad - especially for the girls and women there but we could literally

bankrupt ourselves trying to change their culture. It is just tragic.

[aquart]

27. A friend visits some poor families in Kabul.

She gets a couple of hundred dollars together and then buys food and fuel in the local market for them. She has her ticket to go, but an Afghan minister she knows told her not to go. Can't guarantee her security. She actually phoned from Greece to argue about it. But she knows. She knows it's dangerous now. And that the children she loves to visit may never live to grow up.

She did a documentary on them that aired on Greek tv.

[earcandle]

39. It is a beautiful culture that we destroyed. Treaty of Tripoli anyone?

[Squatch]

40. The Afghan culture is alive and well.

We did not destroy it, nor did any other occupying power, including the Soviets. The Afghan culture has endured thousand of years of conquest and one could argue that existing under occupation is part of the Afghan culture.

True, this place is very poor and a lot has been physically damaged, but the tribes and people of Afghanistan still fiercly cling to their regional identities.

[No Elephants]

115. It takes more than two. It takes changing your party affiliation, then bending over.

[rgbecker]

14. GOBAMA!

Read "Places in between" by Rod Stuart. Afghanistan is no threat to the USA.

[bertman]

18. Maybe President Obama got wind of Terry Gross' interview of Sarah Chayse on Fresh Air

Wednesday Feb 4th. That was a very revealing look into the reasons our efforts are failing despite having had an initial burst of enthusiastic support from the Afghanis.

Well worth the listen if you haven't heard it.

[Politicalboi]

21. Doesn't Gates know that

Dipshit Bush is no longer in charge and he has to actually work to keep his job.

[Mari333]

24. bring all the troops home now. nt

[Gregorian]

31. What’s the endgame. This speaks volumes.

Now I'm going to have to just wait and see what Obama is all about. I'm confused. But optimistic. That question tells me he isn't going to just roam around spending military money. Good news. I hope.


Darn it, I know what's at stake. I know we could benefit their country. And leaving could be a bad thing. But I've posted, and all I can do is edit it to say this. I just hope we do the right thing. And I don't know what it is. I say we leave, but then I don't know.

[earcandle]

41. When I worked for the Controller's office here in San Francisco I completed

a project on Treasure Island Development Authority and the Program Director in charge on the island was a young beautiful woman from Afghanistan. She said her family escaped twelve years before. She was well educated, cultured,
and wise. I am sad we are destroying the beautiful cultures of the Middle East. Who are we to try to make others be like us? We paid Saddam Hussein to gas people and we caused many a country to become corrupt and discard their beautiful citizens, trashed and murdered and their worlds devastated, made into work slaves and sex slaves and whatever by these greedy bastards. They are beasts and they need to be caged naked in the sun with lot of baskets full of eggs placed outside the fence for tourists to throw at them, as they stench in the sun and bake hard and cave in, so no one else will dare to be egged.

[Cherchez la Femme]

74. Under the Taliban

women cannot be educated.

We need to emasculate the Taliban then get the F*** OUT of there
--but still keep an eye out for the Taliban's re-emergence so our previous sacrifices won't be in vain.

Pressure should also be put on any country or group that advocates Sharia law -- even our "good friends" Saudi Arabia.

IMHO, anyhow...

[coalition_unwilling]

99. "Emasculate the Taliban" - are you friggin' joking? Do you even

know what a 'Talib' is???

[conturnedpro09]

42. Only send them if we/they really, truly need them,

and only if it will work, and only if we have an exit strategy. If a "surge" can do for Afghanistan what it did for Iraq, then Obama gets my 100% support.

[snappyturtle]

64. Welcome to DU but......

I object to crediting the surge with helping the situation of our occupation in Iraq. I think the Anwar uprising and the payment to indivduals not to fire at us had a lot more to do with quelling attacks than the surge.

I think President Obama is weighing the benefit of more feet on the ground. I wonder if doing more of what we're doing that doesn't seem to be working is worth putting more targets out there? I am thrilled that he is thinking this over before acting.

Again, Welcome to DU! :hi:

[coalition_unwilling]

100. The so-called "surge" of 30,000 US troops in Iraq only "worked"

because ethnic cleansing was already complete. Any objective observer of contemporary Iraqi society will tell you that the mixed Sunni-Shia neighborhods of Baghdad are gone for good and approximately 4 million Iraqis have been displaced, either externally to reugee camps in Jordan and Syria or internally.

[snappyturtle]

112. Yes, definitely, that too! nt

[sutz12]

45. Measure twice...cut once...

an old engineering/machinist axiom that stood me well over the years.

Bravo Obama! Nice to see some ready, aim, fire, strategy instead of the Bush fire, ready, aim strategery.

[Catamount]

46. Thank God,

That's the first good news I've heard about Afghanistan since we have our new Prez.
Getting further entrenched there is never going to work--as history has shown for hundreds of years.
No invaders have ever survived there for long--and that's what we are to them.
Dealing with these ancient cultures takes more than troops with weapons, it takes long and careful consideration and diplomacy.
In fact I've wondered why we can't just go back to the time right after 9/11--when we had the Taliban's offer to hand over Bin Ladin and take it from there.
That was the reason we went in there wasn't it?
We have a reasonable President now --why not see if they'd do it?
If we left the region altogether, Pakistan too?
Might be too late I suppose.

[Squatch]

47. Counterpoints:

Getting further entrenched there is never going to work--as history has shown for hundreds of years.

Deployment of additional kinetic-oriented brigades would provide the necessary "top cover" to allow the Coalition mentors to properly do their job and bring the ANSF forces to a level of proficiency so that they can take care of their own country. If our entire strategy involved deploying soldiers and employing soldiers already over here to kill bad guys, I would agree with you. However, there are tens of thousands of Coalition soldiers trying to educate the ANSF and their job becomes exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, if they're trying to both mentor their Afghan counterparts and kill bad guys. The deployment of these soldiers will allow us to finish our mission over here, which is to return Afghanistan to a point where they can provide for their own internal security.

No invaders have ever survived there for long--and that's what we are to them.

Last week, a VERY old Pashtun man with his family came up to me with tears in his eyes. He couldn't let go of my hands as he stood there, crying in front of other men, expressing his deep gratitude at what the US is doing in his country.

The previous week (and I wrote about this here on DU), a similar instance occured with a well-digger. I'll never forget the look of those shocking blue eyes looking out through mud caked on his face and beard. He so much wanted me to joing him for Chai, just to say "thank you".

No, we are not invaders to the Afghan people, my friend.

Dealing with these ancient cultures takes more than troops with weapons, it takes long and careful consideration and diplomacy.

No, the solution to Afghanistan is the shoring up of their internal security while simultaneously inculcating trust in the Afghan government and taking the warfight away from the people.

This country, in my opinion, really has a good chance of "making it", you know what I mean? Abandonment of the mission right now would mean abandoning the Afghan people, which after meeting the wonderful people who make up this country, would be an absolute tragedy.

[conturnedpro09]

49. Wow. I support all the good that you're doing.

I've heard stories like this from many of my friends who have returned from duty, as well. It truly seems that these people view us the same way the French did in WWII. How heartwarming.

Stay safe and get back home soon!

[geckosfeet]

55. Thank you for the explanations. I think what Obama wants from the top

level military folks is just what was said in the OP. An exit strategy and the plan for getting to the exit point.

It is unfortunate that creating a plan delays deployments. Hopefully the brass and the diplomats can get something together that makes more sense than what was presented.

[elocs]

58. Thanks Squatch for your feet on the ground assessment

which is a good counterbalance to the opinions of others based solely upon reading the words of someone else.

My godson is serving in the Korengal valley and he should be home next weekend after having been there since last summer. I am guessing that he will back up the things you have said.

[ronnie624]

61. What "assessment"?

All I saw was a couple of romantic anecdotes. I've heard similar comments coming from the three cable 'news' outlets.

I think that particular poster has a lot of reading to do before his opinion could be given any serious consideration.

I have my own little anecdote:

My youngest brother recently retired from the U.S. Army. I would bet that he has spent more time in Afghanistan than any other individual in the entire U.S. military. He now works as a civilian employee for the Pentagon, and just left yet again for that war torn country. I can assure you that he does not have time to post better than ten thousand messages on an internet discussion board. His opinions on this matter differ considerably from that expressed above, and as one of the most intelligent and highly trained individuals I have ever known in my life, I give him far greater credence.

[elocs]

63. Since I wasn't talking to you, I think I'll just ignore you. Goodbye. n/t

[Bragi]

81. I don't buy your political message...

Sorry, Squatch, I don't buy the army line on this. You sound to me like the NATO PR shop.

Worse still, your message reminds me of the message from the military brass in the 60's, when they wanted more and more troops to allegedly "Vietnamize" the war, and train the Vietnamese to provide the security needed for development.

Sound familiar?

I respect your contribution as a soldier, Squatch, but I disagree totally with your political message. This is a pointless war.

Eventually, the same medievil warlords, drug barons, tribal chieftains and religious extremists who have run the Pashtun areas for the last 200 years will return to running the place, no matter how much bombing and killing the US and NATO do.

- B

[conturnedpro09]

101. C'mon...

:eyes: Squatch is just telling you things that confuses what you convinced yourself was right. I gotta trust him more on this one.

[Bragi]

103. Not one thing

Not one thing has he/she said that I have not heard said before. The articulated perspective, if I'm not mistaken, is deeply embedded in current official U.S war doctrine.

Suffice it to say that I don't think -- as you seem to -- that interpersonal trust/credibility is the key issue. Far more important for me are the facts that are acknowledged, and how they are construed within the prevailing war doctrine.

- B

[Catamount]

110. I've always had respect for your opinions ...and

agree with a lot of what you said...and of course we shouldn't just abandon the people and leave them in this mess--I simply don't think we can ever really win anything, let alone hearts and minds through guns and killing. Education and provisions would work better don't you think?
I'm sure you know the history of the region, and I say it again, no matter how good our intentions, I think the sooner we can get our troops out --the better for everyone.
Just my opinion of course.

It would be so nice to be able to travel there again, but it's hard to imagine it now.

And again, thanks for all you've done Squatch

[conturnedpro09]

48. Wait. The freakin' Taliban offered us bin Laden?!

Please elaborate. And tell me, if you can, why we didn't agree to take his ass. I feel slightly embarassed for not knowing about this. I'm going to go back through all the newspapers we saved from September 2001 to check this out.

[scarletwoman]

106. I remember it quite well. What the Taliban basically said is this: "Show us your proof that Osama

bin Laden orchestrated the September 11 attacks. He is our guest, but if you have the proof, we will turn him over to the custody of the Islamic Court in a third country (like Saudi Arabia)."

Of course, despite Colin Powell's promise of a "White Paper" proving bin Laden's involvement, no such proof was forthcoming, and the Taliban's offer was completely ignored -- and quickly sent down the memory hole by never being brought up in our corporate media ever again.

But I read the news release when it happened. Maybe the BBC or the Guardian still has something their archives.

sw

[No Elephants]

114. Newspapers back to 2001? Got Google?

[bottomtheweaver]

50. Great news and good for President Obama!

It's about time somebody asked wtf we're doing there and demanded a straight answer. I just hope he has no plans to visit Dallas in an open car.

:scared:

[Hope And Change]

53. Bravo.That`s what I wanted to hear.K & R!

[jody]

54. Obama has a brief window to let Bush take the blame for the certain debacle in Afghanistan. After

that it becomes Obama's problem and his alone.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

117. Perhaps Obama is choosing what he thinks is the best course of action for his country and the world

instead of looking to maximize his political standing.

Which is an attitude I think everybody should have, instead of Rush's "I hope he fails." Anybody with THAT mindset is a worthless asshole, don't you agree?

[Peace Patriot]

59. The problem is that the mission of the Bushwhacks is WRONG, and the mission hasn't changed.

And there is no other reason for the U.S. to be fighting in Afghanistan except that wrongful mission.

I'm sorry, Squatch, for you or any other soldier caught in that situation. Truly, truly sorry, for I have seen all this before, during Vietnam--the same bullshit from our government and military, and the same tragic self-delusion of soldiers in the field, who have to believe that they are doing good, and this makes it very difficult for them to see how wrong the mission is.

The Bushwhack mission is to...

Install a U.S.-dominated government for a U.S. oil corp pipeline, to circumvent Iran/Russia, and to fulfill the goals of the "Project For a New American Century" of hijacking the U.S. military for corporate resource wars, to gain control of the world's last gas/oil and other resources by force. Secondary goal: our war profiteers need the work; don't care so much about the goal, just want to keep looting us blind for guns, tanks and planes, and all that goes with them.

All other aspects of U.S. war/occupation of Afghanistan derive from that mission: Select and install the Afghan government's leaders and support them with billions in military and other aid to prop them up; subdue (torture, kill, smash, bomb) any Afghans who don't like being occupied and dominated; change Afghan culture to make people dependent on U.S. goods and predatory capitalism, so they will remain nominally loyal to U.S. predatory capitalist purposes; keep the U.S. population subdued with fear of "terror" so they won't rebel against the war profiteering and corporate rule.

The war on Afghanistan has nothing to do with 9/11! There is no one we can kill in Afghanistan that will make us "safe." No one!

The Taliban offered to hand over OBL, right after 9/11, and the Bushwhacks refused that offer. Why? Because they couldn't give a shit about OBL. The Bushwhacks were the real perps of 9/11 anyway. At the least, they let it happen. In the "Project for a New American Century," they stated, in cold type, that they needed a "new Pearl Harbor," to implement their plan to hijack the U.S. military for corporate resource wars. Somehow, they got their "new Pearl Harbor." But even if this were not true--even if they were just caught with their pants down, and were inadvertently letting illegal jihadists run around the U.S. taking flight lessons--killing thousands of innocent people and anti-occupation tribalists or patriots in Afghanistan makes more terrorists.

Our corporate-run, war profiteer-run government does not give one shit about the Afghani people, the rights of women, fairness, justice or any other of their goddamn lies. Individual soldiers may care--because they are decent people. Our government is not run by decent people. It is run by corporate lawyers and lobbyists and multinational financial entities and their "bought and paid for" representatives in Congress. And Barack Obama has little choice but to serve their goals, or he's a dead man. And today, we have far rightwing corporations running our voting system with 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls, so the Dark Lords of war and predatory capitalism, who also control all news/opinion in the U.S., can just Diebold their choices in or out of office, with plausible narratives in the media, to fulfill their long or short term goals. If Obama becomes too uppity, requiring a non-corporate, non-war profiteer mission and an exit strategy in Afghanistan that doesn't satisfy their goals, they have their scenarios all laid out for getting rid of him.

The real rulers of the U.S. wanted a compliant government in Iraq, to sign the oil contracts and deliver the oil. They got it. Now they want the same in Afghanistan. We know from their dealings with Saudi Arabia and other extremely oppressive governments that they don't give a shit about the freedom or sovereignty of any people, nor about social justice, nor about democracy. They sell bullshit about "freedom and democracy" to U.S. soldiers in situations like Afghanistan to keep them obeying orders. What happened to the freedom of women in Iraq after our invasion? These corporate barons don't give a shit. What happened to the freedom of the million people they slaughtered to invade and occupy Iraq, and install an oil giveaway government? They don't give a shit. As Rumsfeld said, "We don't do body counts." They want dependent governments that do their bidding, or their equals in tyranny like the sheiks of Saudia Arabia, Kuwait and the U.A.E.

And if you go back in history, you will find these corporate intentions way back in 1954, for instance, when the U.S. destroyed Iran's democracy. Why? Because their elected president nationalized the oil, and wanted to use the profits to benefit the people. THE OIL!

Then what did we do to Iran? We installed the heinous Shah of Iran, who inflicted the Iranians with 25 years of torture and oppression, in order to keep the oil profits flowing to the west.

The mission in Afghanistan was WRONG to begin with, and I don't think there is any putting it right. We have NO justification for installing and propping up a government there, and NO right whatsoever to be dictating their political or economic system, or their social organization--and even if we had some right, in our own opinion, to, say, impose our notion of equal rights for women, you can't do that by force. You do that with diplomacy, through lawful international institutions like the UN, by consensus, by talking, by humanitarian aid, by supporting education. You don't go slaughtering people and claiming to be doing it for their own good!

It. Is. WRONG. Our army can't change people. It can only subdue them, and only for a while. Furthermore, we are TEN TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT (and counting!). Our economy has also been hijacked and inflicted with its own Financial 9/11. We do not have the money for a "Marshall Plan" for Afghanistan, even if our intentions there were good. It's all gone. We're bankrupt. It's over. "The Project for a New American Century" is over. It was an EVIL PLAN. And it has destroyed us and all of our intentions, good or bad.

But the war profiteers won't give up until every last dime of Social Security, and health care, and our educational system, and our roads and infrastructure--every dime we have, and every dime our children have unto the 7th generation--has been poured into their pockets. This Beast will not rest until it has eaten us alive.

[bottomtheweaver]

62. ^^ THE TRUTH FOR ALL WHO CARE TO READ IT ^^

Nicely done. Now that the catapulter-in-chief and his board of deceivers are finally gone let's hope the truth can start trickling out.

[The abyss]

66. Peace Patriot: Words to live by.

Words to repeat. Words of truth!

Well said, thank you.

[ronnie624]

68. Kick for a genuine assessment. n/t

[conturnedpro09]

85. So your opposition is only based on ideological, existential reasons, then?

First, 'Squatch' is a true patriot who is doing the right thing. The war he fights is good, just, and necessary. While I understand that there is a branch here on the Left that will always see war through the paradigm of money/greed/corporations, I am with (what I believe is) the majority of Democrats that give our uses of force a fairer look. In the case of our continued mission in Afghanistan, it is truly, as TIME magazine put it, "the right war."

Second, as I said in my subject line, it seems that your rationale for steadfast opposition is based on existential reasons. You, along with many others here, clearly, utterly despise the concepts of "American empire," "US imperialism," "war profiteering," "puppet governments," etc., etc., etc. That's totally fine. For the most part, I cringe at these ideas too.

But don't kid yourself by thinking that our mission in World War II had absolutely no financial interests in mind, nor any ideas of global hegemony in mind either. That's nonsense. Of course it did, and that's okay! Because good, just, and necessary things took place. A fascist empire was destroyed. An imperialist emperor was dethroned. The notion of an Aryan race ruling the world was thrown into the trashheap of history. And dozens of satanic death camps were liberated.

And if opposing the achieving of US interests (yes, that may include financial interests combined with others) is your criteria for opposing war, then for the sake of shunning hypocrisy, please tell us that you would've opposed WWII as well. I'd sincerely appreciate the intellectual consistency and honesty, I would just shutter at what our world would look like had it all gone your way. :scared:

In Afghanistan, extreme social injustice ran amok for years. An extremist, fundamentalist government ran the country and oversaw a society deprived of even the simplest notion of human rights. There are many books on the Taliban that you can read by liberal, conservative, and nonpoltical authors that describe the conditions of the people under the Taliban's rule and rules. Simply put, it was pure hell.

And on top of the brutal treatment of its people, the Taliban gave great support and sanctuary to a network of killers we all know as al Qaeda. This group of monsters grew in global strength, power, and influence while being harbored by the Taliban. Their vision for the world based on the perversion of the otherwise peaceful, noble, and fascinating world religion of Islam went unquestioned during this time. They often made clear of their murderous intentions, and regretably, nobody listened.

Then came 9/11. And the rest is history. And hopefully, because of a surge in Afghanistan, all the remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda will be as well.

And if a free, democratic, somewhat secular Afghanistan that ensures the basic rights of its people and opposes terrorism remains our new ally, so what?! What is bad about that? Nothing really, nothing at all.

If some here are fine with young Muslim girls being forced to keep their faces hidden as long as the "American empire" doesn't grow and (to quote Peace Patriot) "circumvent Iran/Russia" in the favor of the US, then I truly hope that they do not openly call themselves liberals or Democrats. Surely the likes of JFK and FDR and Obama would be thankful.

Peace Patriot also states, "The war on Afghanistan has nothing to do with 9/11! There is no one we can kill in Afghanistan that will make us 'safe.' No one!"

This is true for Iraq, which is why most of the free world (at least the people if not the governments) rightfully opposed our invasion of it. The aforementioned statement on Afghanistan, however, is only true if you find ideological reasons to force yourself to believe it. Luckily, most just don't. Including President Obama.

So Squatch, with all due respect to 'Peace Patriot,' I'm sure you know that most of your fellow citizens back home don't hold his/her worldview and that while overseas, you and the rest of our men and women in combat just ought to ignore it. :patriot:

(Oh, and it any DUers happen to agree with me, not that it really make/breaks my case, please feel free to say so! I think the other branches of our party need a voice on this forum too! :hi: )

[bottomtheweaver]

86. It doesn't get any more nuts and bolts than 911.

Let's think about 911 for a moment. Can a fire on the 90th floor of a massively overbuilt supertall cause the entire structure to distintegrate into particles and vapor in a matter of seconds?

No, it cannot. So the 911 narrative you're basing your whole picture on is a big fat lie, just like all the other big fat lies about the Taliban, Iraq, al Qaeda, terror cells, and the rest. It's not brain surgery and it's not structuralist linguistics or anything complicated. It's ridiculously material and obvious.

[conturnedpro09]

102. The towers collapsed because two airplanes crashed into them.

Sorry to disappoint. That's it.

As long as you keep telling yourself that 9/11 was an inside job, we will obviously never, ever agree on anything related to foreign affairs.

You're bound for some major disappointments from our new administration as well. You may want to tell President Obama about the vital information you have on the 9/11 attacks. I'm sure he'll be glad to know that our government was behind it, and not "bin Laden" or any other bad guys that our evil government made up. Seriously. You need to tell him. Fast.
:eyes:

[chill_wind]

88. Why do I feel like we've just had a visit from Dick Cheney's new office in the burbs?

"Con turned pro"? How much is the DLC paying these days?

War is a RACKET.

[conturnedpro09]

105. And why am I a DLCer from Dick Cheney's office?

Is it because I think that 9/11 was committed by--gasp!--terrorists who were harbored by the Taliban? Or because I want to destroy the Taliban and those terrorists (al Qaeda) for the sake of our wellbeing and that of innocent Afghani civilians? I must be missing something. But I have this funny feeling that most Americans and most Democrats agree with me on this one.

[scarletwoman]

107. What a bunch of incoherent nonsense. It's nothing but a rambling apologia for social engineering at

gunpoint by the oh-so-superior White Race.

[blindpig]

121. Well said. n/t

[tekisui]

60. KNR!~ I am impressed.

[AlbertCat]

70. When did the country of Afghanistan attack the USA?

I missed that. I do remember them harboring Osama... but Osama has moved on ages ago...to our ally Pakistan. So exactly why are we still killing Afghans? Because they grow poppies? To protect a pipeline?

[SpartanDem]

75. Brilliant

Let's just let everything go back to the way it was, let the Taliban return to power so they can subjugate and torture men and women who don't conform to there fundamentalism. Who let Al-Queda basically use the country as their main training facility. We can simply negotiate with the because we how reasonable religious fanatics are. We can bury our heads in the sand and act as if Afghanistan was this peaceful nation minding it own business on 9/11 instead Al Quedea #1 accomplice.

[EFerrari]

76. Afghanistan was not an AQ accomplice. Criminals in their government were.

And if we need to go to war with religious radicals, we better start in Orange County, California.

Better yet, why don't we stop waging proxy wars that only generate enemies we have to deal with down the line?

[Peace Patriot]

87. Al Qaeda is a world problem. But do you see any other country jumping in to

fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? No! They can't wait to get out, now that the Bushwhack blackmailers, arm-twisters, knee-cappers and bullies are gone. Why? Because they know that Al Qaeda is a POLICE problem, not a military one. You kill dozens more civilians in Afghanistan week after week after week, you create a hundred jihadists for every death. This is a STUPID, STUPID, STUPID, STUPID policy! And the reasons it's so stupid is the mission was NEVER to stop Al Qaeda, nor to catch OBL.. This mission was/is the pipeline--probably with Bush Cartel/CIA heroine trafficking into the bargain--and the mission requires that there be a bad guy army to fight, to justify the occupation of Afghanistan.

"We can bury our heads in the sand and act as if Afghanistan was this peaceful nation minding it own business on 9/11 instead Al Quedea #1 accomplice."

The #1 accomplices on 9/11 were whoever in the FBI turned down Colleen Rowley's request for a FISA warrant to get into Zacarias Moussaoui's computer in August 2001, and whoever gave that order, and whoever was in charge of NORAD'S standard operating procedures for protecting the east coast from commercial airplane attack, and whoever gave the order telling them to stand down, and George W. Bush, who ignored the plainest warnings imaginable that an Al Qaeda attack was imminent, and went on vacation, and a dozen other people guilty of malfeasance or treason.

OBL could train all the jihadists he could manage, in some godforsaken place or another, and still could not have pulled off 9/11--IF Al Qaeda did it--without assistance from within our own government. Not feasible. Not possible. And I think you are the one "burying your head in the sand," if you don't realize this.

As for "everything going back to the way it was" in Afghanistan, it will. It will go back to the way it was 2,300 years ago when Alexander the Great tried to subdue the tribes of Afghanistan. There is a reason for the truism, "Afghanistan is where empires go to die." Don't try it. Don't even think about it. It is as crazy as a "land war in Southeast Asia."

[ohio2007]

77. "What’s the endgame?” be ready for mission statement redefined in a few days time

NATO commander: Afghanistan drug raids imminent

MUNICH – In an effort to strike at a key income source for Taliban militants, the top NATO commander said Sunday that operations to attack drug lords and labs in Afghanistan will begin within the "next several days."

snip

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090208/ap_on_re_eu/nato_afghanistan

Wonder if Barack will mention this change in primetime next week

[ronnie624]

78. I guess the global banking industry has squeezed all the profits they can out of Afghanistan heroin.

Now that the White House enablers are gone, it's time to get rid of the poppies.

[avaistheone1]

82. True.

[avaistheone1]

83. It would be very wise of Obama not to get us further involved there.

[ohio2007]

84. but the CIA will never give up the cash crop right ?

:sarcasm:

the poppies have been around longer then the last batch of enablers .

And the idea of running a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan is putting $ back into the global banking industry will soon be back on the table LOL

December 4, 1997
A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

yippeee
the new world order tin foil will be back after a ten year Haidas ;)

[ronnie624]

109. To clarify:

I didn't mean to imply that banks are involved in the production of heroin, only that the $1.5 trillion in revenue generated by the illicit drug trade is very much welcomed by the global financial industry, and that for whatever reason, poppy production in Afghanistan increased by about 2000% immediately following the U.S. invasion, and continued to set new records practically every production cycle thereafter.


Profits from the global illicit drug trade helped keep the international banking system afloat during the crisis that swept the global financial system during the second half of last year, the UN's leading drug fighter said in an interview with the Austrian magazine Profil, which was made available Sunday. Drug money was almost the only available capital for banks, said Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

<http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/570/costa_UNODC_drug_trade_banks>


The latest figures, obtained by The News, reveals that the drug production, instead of its eradication, has registered a hike of 40 times more than the lowest in 2001 in all the previous 14 years during which the Taliban emerged, fell and the sole superpower installed its favourites.

Similarly 20 times more area has been brought under cultivation of opium poppy in the last seven years as it was just 7,606 hectares in the year 2001 against presently 1,57,000 hectares, a bad example that would ultimately hit the masses damaging their fundamentals.

<http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/01/28/afghanistan-cultivates-drugs-on-record-vast-area-under-us-invasion.html>


Afghanistan retook its place as the world's leading producer of heroin last year, after US-led forces overthrew the Taleban which had banned cultivation of opium poppies.

The finding was made in a key drug report, distributed in Kabul on Sunday by the US State Department, which supports almost identical findings by the United Nations last week.

Low-grade heroin is refined in Afghanistan from opium, which is manufactured from the extract of poppies.

"The size of the opium harvest in 2002 makes Afghanistan the world's leading opium producer," the report said.

The International Narcotics Control Strategy Report said the area of land used to cultivate opium poppies reached 30,750 hectares, compared with 1,685 hectares in 2001.

Afghanistan overtook Burma - whose production fell for the sixth straight year, to 630 tonnes - as the leading opium producer.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2814861.stm>

[Art_from_Ark]

119. What's a "ten year Haidas"?

Some sort of subgroup of a Pacific Northwest Indian tribe that only makes an appearance once every 10 years?

On a less sarcastic note, what is the purpose of your post, exactly? Were you not aware that the "international energy company" in question was Unocal, which eventually gave up on the plan for the Afghanistan pipeline, only to see the contract awarded to an Argentine company before 9-11? Then voila, before you can say "Hamid's your president", the Taliban is out and a former Unocal employee is installed as president of Afghanistan just 3 years after Unocal gave up on its plan, and just a few months after the installation of an intensely oil-industry-friendly administration.

[Bragi]

80. Good

Obama's policy of escalating this war is a mistake. I hope this news means that he is looking for a process that will result in the troops coming home soon, and Afghanis being left to sort out their future on their own.

No good can come from the continued occupation of this most backward and poorest of countries.

- B

[scarletwoman]

108. I highly recommend Pat Lang's take on all this: "What do we want in Afghanistan?"

What do we want in Afghanistan?

It must be the Afghans who need Afghanistan, or do they?

The various Pushtun, Uzbek, Hazara, Tajik, Turkman, Persian (in the west), Baluch and Arab (southwest) peoples of the state of Afghanistan have little in common other than an adherence to a wide variety of forms of Islam. Their main languages are mutually incomprehensible and even within the main ethno-linguistic groups like the Pushtun they are deeply divided into confederations, political factions and among local leaders. The state of Afghanistan is a 19th Century creation of the Russian and Indian (British) empires as a convenient way of creating a buffer zone between them. Serendipitously, that buffer zone contained many fractious and ungovernable peoples who were far too much trouble for permanent occupation and "la mission civilizatrice." The name, "Afghanistan" was rather arbitrarily adopted from the name of one of the larger Pushtun factions whose Khan had pretensions to royalty and who had a fair amount of power in the area of Kabul.

This is a country? This is certainly not a nation, not in the sense that any self respecting political scientist would recognize the term. There really is not such a thing as the Afghan People. One thing that all these kinds of "Afghans" have in common is a deep seated xenophobia, especially against non-Muslims.

President Obama's policy and strategy review seems to have as a "given" that the US and NATO should "make something" of Afghanistan, that we should fully commit ourselves to a program of building an Afghan Nation.

Why should we do that? As an act of "Christian Charity?"

There has never been such a thing as the kind of Afghanistan that President Obama and the newly converted COIN generals envision. It is not a question of re-building anything. It is a question of building something that has never existed. Why should we do that? Will the "Afghans" love us for it, and should we care about that?

We went into Afghanistan to deprive the takfiri jihadis of a base. That was a counter-terrorism operation. What is assumed to be the future of American policy in Afghanistan is something that is far more than a counter-terrorism operation.

(More at link -- please go read the whole thing)

sw

[Xenotime]

111. The US just needs to stand down and the world would be better off.

[conturnedpro09]

118. Afghani women wouldn't be....

And no, I'm not trying to reiterate rightwing talking points about the war or anything like that. But facts are facts. If the U.S. military and its allies can make life better for innocent Afghanis by improving social justice for that country's citizens- and kill some psychotic terrorists along the way (ones who are with bin Laden...) -what is so terrible about that? Nothing. B...bu...but we shouldn't be telling other countries how to rule their citizens! Bullshit. Talk to me about WWII and Darfur, people.

I'm just thankful Obama believes in being a good citizen of the world and not a "fuck the 'US corporatocracy' even it means more young girls get stoned to death" type of person. He's a leader. Whether it's helping me and you pay for our health care and our kids' college if they go, or bringing justice to clear cut extremist killers and oppressors, Obama has something I wish more here in the "underground" left would have: empathy. It's makes him a good person and noble president.

[ronnie624]

120. I believe the U.S. government

has about as much interest in the rights of Afghan women as they do in those of Iraqi women.

Here is what the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan has to say on the matter:

Neither the US nor Jehadies and Taliban,
Long Live the Struggle of Independent and Democratic Forces of Afghanistan!

RAWA strongly believes that there should be no expectation of either the US or any other country to present us with democracy, peace and prosperity. Our freedom is only achievable at the hands of our people.

<http://www.rawa.org/events/sevenyear_e.htm>

[No Elephants]

116. This thread seems to have been invaded by cons ("cons" in more ways than one).