Afghanistan is where empires go to die.

[seemslikeadream]

Has anyone mentioned that to the President?

[leftchick]

1. doubt it

:hi:

[seemslikeadream]

2. you tell him leftchick

I don't think he will listen to me :hi:


and I have to listen to Mica Mouses' father school me on Afghanistan

[leftchick]

17. check this out

Don't Bleed Resources in Afghanistan
posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel on 02/17/2009 @ 6:18pm

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/409287/print?rel=nofollow

Today, President Obama announced the deployment of 17,000 additional US troops to Afghanistan.

Two decades and two days after the Soviet army withdrew from its disastrous occupation in Afghanistan, it saddens me that we're heading down a path that has ensnared the British empire and the former Soviet Union. What's especially troubling is that Obama, who wisely ordered a fundamental review of US options in that country, is sending troops without even waiting for the review process to conclude. Although Obama insisted in his statement of Tuesday that "this troop increase does not pre-determine the outcome of that strategic review," one has to ask : Why not wait for the results of a comprehensive review that, if conducted honestly, may well determine that the Administration should take military escalation off the table in favor of a non-military regional strategy to stabilize Afghanistan and strengthen Pakistan?

As Tom Andrews, National Director of Win Without War put it, "The first principle for someone who finds himself in a hole is to stop digging, The US policy 'hole' in Afghanistan is not of the new Administration's making. But it is important for the President to consider if adding new US combat forces in Afghanistan, without a new and comprehensive plan, for US policy there, might be digging an even bigger hole."

Escalating the occupation of Afghanistan will bleed us of the resources needed for economic recovery, further destabilize Pakistan, open a rift with our European allies, and negate the positive consequences of withdrawing from Iraq on our image in the Muslim world. Escalation will not secure a better future for the Afghan people or increase US security. How will additional troops help meet the "clear and achievable objectives in Afghanistan and the region" that Obama spoke of Tuesday afternoon? We have not received a clear answer to that fundamental question.

Those who support non-military solutions should affect the outcome of the Obama Administration's ongoing strategic review process ends. Write your Representatives. Go to GETAFGHANISTANRIGHT.COM to find ideas for how you might get involved and what you can do.

[tekisui]

3. Not before a SURGE!

They are already setting a 'timeline' of at least 3-4 years before things improve in Afghanistan. That means by the end of his first term, Afghanistan will be Obama's war.

[seemslikeadream]

4. Obama's Vietnam

[Myrina]

5. I think Zbiggy Brzeznski tried to on Rachel Maddow last nite ..

:shrug:

I really hope Prez O. listens, we either go all in & pull all out, fast ... or yeah it'll be the LaBrea Tar Pits for us - like it was for the USSR.

[seemslikeadream]

6. if anyone should know it would be him

[bdamomma]

those tribal leaders in Afghanistan took down the USSR

we will have the same fate if we continue this killing spree.

[dysfunctional press]

13. and the ussr BORDERED afghanistan...

we have to send everything half-way around the world, and then DRIVE thru pakistan.

i had really hoped that obama was smarter than this.

[arcadian]

23. The difference is that the CIA proovided them with Stinger shoulder launched missile systems.

Which quickened the Soviet defeat. With such systems the tribal leaders will fight us to a standstill.

[elocs]

7. I don't know, but who here actually believes Obama is ignorant

or unaware of history. Just because he doesn't jump through our hoops or only do what we want him to do does not make him stupid.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

11. I'm not so much concerned with Obama as I am with the generals.

They seem to have a disturbing tendency to keep fighting the last war.

[bdamomma]

19. Who are those Generals???

we are in some dangerous terrority, we have been there for 7 years?? nothing has changed and the Taliban is excelling, they will fight till the death, haven't we learned anything? a big NO.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

22. Because we're using Korean War/Vietnam era tactics.

(And in those wars we were using WWII tactics). As long as we continue to fail to recognize the fact that Afghanistan != Vietnam culturally or situationally our troops will be put into needless danger and we're not going to make any progress.

We can't keep backing the Mayor of Kabul as we do now. We must recognize that Afghanistan cannot be held by a central government. We must return more political autonomy to the regional and tribal authorities and work closely with them to promote stability.

Oh, and if we actually invited the Taliban into the political process we'd probably see some interesting and productive results.

[elocs]

24. And in the Civil War here they were still using Revolutionary War tactics,

massed armies marching in formation, facing each other and firing.

We really, really need to think outside the box and be able to address different problems and situations like these differently. There are huge cultural differences here which we refuse to grasp. The loyalty of the people is to their tribe or region and not to the country of Afghanistan. Their ties and devotion to Islam if far beyond what we seem to be able to understand. Why do we believe that every country in the world wants exactly the same kind of government that we have? What if they really want an Islamic republic? Are they allowed to have the government of their own choosing?

Here is a great link which I recently saw here at DU: http://michaelparenti.org/afghanistan%20story%20untold.html and it historically explains the situation there.

Ultimately, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that we are saying here about the situation in Afghanistan that Obama does not already know.

[atreides1]

12. It's not that he's ignorant of history

The problem is that the die hards in the Pentagon actually believe their own propaganda, and the US military has completely under estimated the Taliban, and over estimated Karzai and his Warlord partners.

[TahitiNut]

8. I'm sure he's read some Rudyard Kipling.

:shrug:

[seemslikeadream]

9. Who will be asked to be the last killed in Afghanistan?

[seemslikeadream]

14. I am also sure he has

then WHY?

[PassingFair]

16. O-I-L transport.

It's what we fight for.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Kipling

[seemslikeadream]

10. US commander: Troops 'stalemated' in Afghanistan

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090218/D96E9N6G0.html

Feb 18, 6:37 PM (ET)

By LARA JAKE

WASHINGTON (AP) - The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan offered a grim view Wednesday of military efforts in southern Afghanistan, warning that 17,000 new troops will take on emboldened Taliban insurgents who have "stalemated" U.S. and allied forces.

Army Gen. David McKiernan also predicted that the bolstered numbers of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan - about 55,000 in all - will remain near those levels for up to five years.

Still, McKiernan said, that is only about two-thirds of the number of troops he has requested to secure the war-torn nation.

McKiernan told reporters at the Pentagon Wednesday that the extra Army and Marine forces will be in place by the summer, primed for counterinsurgency operations against the Taliban but also ready to conduct training with Afghan police forces.

McKiernan said what the surge "allows us to do is change the dynamics of the security situation, predominantly in southern Afghanistan, where we are, at best, stalemated.

"I'm not here to tell you that there's not an increased level of violence, because there is," he said.

The 17,000 additional troops, which President Barack Obama approved Tuesday to begin deploying this spring, will join an estimated 38,000 already in Afghanistan.

Another 10,000 U.S. soldiers could be headed to Afghanistan in the future as the Obama administration decides how to balance its troop levels with those from other nations and the Afghan army. The White House has said it will not make further decisions about its next moves in Afghanistan until it has completed a strategic review of the war, in tandem with the Afghan government.

[Bigmack]

15. I think Obama is screwed....

no matter which way he jumps.

If he stays, he owns that clusterfuck. If he leaves, the Rightwingnuts will pillory him forever for "losing" Afghanistan... and Iraq too, of course, after the upcoming civil war there.

[bdamomma]

18. there is one voice of reason surfacing read this article.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Top_Senate_Democrat_questions_Obama_Afghanistan_0218.html

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. How does one say "the light at the end of the tunnel" in Pashtun?

We're already hearing about the "falling dominoes" in the region.

[leftofthedial]

25. I'm also sure someone has mentioned that JFK was eliminated

soon after making noises about de-escalating in Viet Nam.

The MIC needs its wars.

[Bigmack]

26. You're paranoid...

NOT!!

I just read "Family of Secrets" by Russ Baker, and I'm convinced that there is a real government buried under all this Democratic/Republican facade, and that twisted government will not allow outsiders to really control what the US does.

I think Kennedy thwarted that secret government and paid for it.

I fear for Obama for the same reason.

[ladjf]

27. Perhaps it's a Rubicon of sorts. nt