HELEN THOMAS: Leave Afghanistan now

[laststeamtrain]

Leave Afghanistan now

By HELEN THOMAS
First published: Monday, May 24, 2010

Afghan President Hamid Karzai recently got a close look at the cost of war and American sacrifices in a rare travel schedule for a visiting head of state.

The Obama administration earlier this month rolled out the red carpet to gloss over the friction that caused Karzai earlier this year to threaten to join the Taliban -- the enemy. Or is the enemy al-Qaida? Or both?

<snip>

As Obama stood quietly at his podium, I wondered what he was thinking. Does he really believe in the righteousness of the cause?

If only he had lived through the Vietnam War years or had a better sense of that era, where the American people forced the U.S. leadership to get out of a war we should never have been in.

<snip>

After nine years of war there -- twice as long as either of the two world wars of the 20th century -- the silence of the American people is deafening. The automatic go-along of Congress also is incredible in view of the draining human cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

<snip>

Obama has pledged to get out by mid-2011. Why not now?

<more>

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=934040&category=OPINION

[midnight]

1. Helen always knows what to say.....

[Kolesar]

2. President Obama was boxed in by cheney and an insubordinate Pentagon brass a year ago

Obama campaigned on finishing the justified war in Afghanistan. He acted on his campaign promise.

There is an issue of having unstable nuclear power Pakistan. If we could clear the uninvited Taliban out of the Afghan border region, it would stabilize Pakistan. But it's not easy or that easy.

Anybody got a better answer? Like H Ross Perot said: "I'm all ears"

[ixion]

3. "If we could clear the uninvited Taliban"

Uh, I beg to differ. We are the ones who are uninvited.

[Kolesar]

6. Pakistan, not Afghanistan

[ixion]

10. Yeah, they don't want us there, either

The Taliban are able to sustain themselves in the region ONLY with support from the local tribes. Hence, uninvited isn't really the case.

[Kolesar]

11. Were you in favor of invading Afghanistan in 2001? ... eom

[ixion]

12. Nope. I was against it. eom

[pundaint]

13. No, the Leader of the Free World wasn't "boxed in" by anybody. If you think he's not up to the

leadership position, just say so.

[Kolesar]

14. Speak for your self, punt aint

[pundaint]

20. OK, so you've demonstrated your cut 'n paste Fail, and have responded with a non sequitur.

You leave me with nothing more to refute. Your position has not been buttressed, and your credibility is diminished at your own hand.

[Hawkowl]

24. Buy them off

It would be cheaper to simply buy them off. They've already proved they can maintain order. We've beaten them with a stick now its time for the carrot.

Karzai needs to go. He CAN'T maintain order.

I think it would be much more cost efficient than the billion dollars a day and numbers of dead and permanently psychologically fucked up soldiers we are creating.

[Demeter]

4. Obama Is a Fool

He's willing to be the manipulated instead of the manipulator. And it's all for that infantile fantasy of "bipartisanship".

The country has no "Party", it has citizens, visitors and corporations. If the country abuses its citizens, as it has this last decade especially, it loses.
If the country is turned over to the corporations, "party" becomes irrelevant, as it has.

If Obama doesn't get a clue pretty soon, we are all doomed.

[Kolesar]

7. The US military is a lobby that is hard to counter

like the banks' lobby.

[avaistheone1]

19. Being president is hard work.

Just ask Bush 43. lol

If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.

[Solly Mack]

5. k/r

[elocs]

8. "Now" needs to be defined by those who call for a pullout "now".

Would that mean an immediate bug-out with troops leaving as fast as possible (that would play well on tv and with American voters)? Or is "now" an ordered withdrawal over the coming weeks and months?

Certainly our presence there has consequences, many negative ones. If we were to withdraw "now" there would also certainly be negative consequences. Will there be as much hand wringing over those negative consequences?

Although we do need to take moves to get out of Afghanistan rather than miring ourselves more deeply there it is naive to think that if we were somehow to get out "now" that it would be a happy/happy--joy/joy situation. We need to consider the entire picture and all the consequences of choices.

I believe that if the Afghan people do not want their own country more than the Taliban or al Qaeda wants to take it from them, then we cannot do their fighting for them. If they cannot win their own war while being armed and supplied by the most powerful nation on earth, then I question how badly they want their own country.

What would have happened in our nation's war for independence if France had taken control of the war and did most of the fighting for us? We won our independence with help, but ultimately with our own blood. Afghanistan needs to do the same.

[Martin Eden]

16. Consequences of pulling out

You have raised a couple important questions that never seem to be answered by those clamoring for a pull-out NOW.
1) Describe the pull-out, such as how quickly and whether there is some kind of transition to Afghan forces.
2) What are the likely consequences of the described pull-out?

That 2nd question is especially important. I see 3 main areas of consequence:

Afghanistan
Will there be a bloody civil war after we leave, and will the Taliban regain control?

Pakistan
If the Taliban retake Afghanistan, how does this impact nuclear-armed Pakistan and their internal struggle against radical fundamentalists?

United States
What would be the political consequences of seeing splashed across our TV screens images of the Taliban triumphantly celebrating their defeat of the "Great Satan" by burning the American flag in the streets of Kabul? Would the Republicans be able to exploit the consequences of Obama's "cut and run" policy as proof that Democrats can't be trusted on national security ... would this be just what they needed for retaking Congress and the White House and once again ramping up the flag-waving militarism of the previous 8 years?


The last time I brought up that last question I was excoriated for playing politics with the lives of our young people in uniform. Nevertheless, I believe it is a question that must be asked because the consequences are real.

I'm not saying we should not pull out. I'm saying that whenver a decision of this magnitude is made you better have a pretty good idea of the consequences and have a plan of how to deal with those consequences -- both in terms of foreign policy strategy and domestic politics.

If we don't ask these questions and come up with some realistic answers, we are essentially rolling the dice and hoping it doesn't result in a worse disaster. That is a potentially very deadly game indeed.

[elocs]

18. People need to consider and think about all the consequences of getting out of Afghanistan,

especially "now", whenever that may be. It is easy to have a simplistic solution for a very complicated problem.

[pundaint]

21. Is there a projected future state when your pull-out objections will no longer be true?

We cannot win because war is the only objective. It is well past time to return all American war fighters home. They are being put in grave peril to do no good, by corrupt leadership.

[elocs]

23. I did not say we should not pull out, I said we need to consider all the consequences.

That's not unreasonable. I just wonder if those who want us to get out now, whatever that means, have considered the negative consequences of that action and will be just as upset by them as they are our presence there. Simply pulling out does not magically make everything in Afghanistan all better.

[aquart]

9. Such a smart woman. Listen to Helen!

[awoke_in_2003]

22. Just wait...

the squad will soon be here to toss Helen off (and under) the bus (I wonder if the bus has a trap door just for this purpose?).

[onpatrol98]

15. Bipartisanship

I don't believe we're in Afghanistan because the president believes in bipartisanship. I believe he has sincerely always felt that the war in Afghanistan to be the "justified" war.

That was my take of his campaign stance. Not that he wanted to win over conservatives. He believed in the Afghan war and not in the Iraq war.

I would like to be out of both places...and for the record, I would prefer we not mess with North Korea, either.

[FlyByNight]

17. Why not get out now?

Evidently, the right people haven't made enough money yet: Big Oil, the MIC, the poppy growers, etc., want their respective cut - either above or below board. In addition, the "War on (non-Saudi backed) Terror" only leads to fewer and fewer rights here in the US which is just fine for the surveillance-state profiteers.

The abject, vulgar waste of blood and treasure is nauseating.

:puke: