Proud Liberal Dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 06:28 PM
Original message |
What happened to Iraq? Why is everybody suddenly focusing on Afghanistan? |
|
I have observed, both here and elsewhere, that Iraq seems to have virtually disappeared from everybody's radar. Has anybody else noticed this? I'm also surprised that Afghanistan, largely ignored since Bush invaded/occupied Iraq, has been a more contentious subject since Obama became President while coverage of Iraq has largely receded from media attention and debate. What I have found even more confusing is that, starting with a Newsweek story this past winter and filtering into even progressive circles, Afghanistan is frequently being compared to Vietnam and historical attempts to and there has been endless speculation, particularly as of late, about whether Afghanistan will become "Obama's Vietnam". Without judging the merits thereof, I guess I don't understand why, under Obama, Afghanistan has become more of a focal point in discussing our military involvement throughout the world whereas Iraq, which is IMHO the worst and least justifiable of the two military *conflicts*, is not being discussed much anymore nor being criticized nearly as much as it was back in 2007? :shrug: Is it the lack of corporate media attention? Does the corporate media see this as a conflict that is easier to criticize Obama over all of the sudden even though it barely covered Afghanistan during the past 7-8 years? Now, everybody seems to be acting like Afghanistan is Obama's would-be Lyndon Johnson-like crisis/failure and almost nobody brings up the fact that part of the reason things have worsened in Afghanistan is because of Bush's diversion of resources and military assets to Iraq for the past 6 years. What gives?
|
tularetom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 06:31 PM
Response to Original message |
1. We won. Didn't you hear? |
icnorth
(954 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. May 1, 2003 wasn't it? n/t |
timeforpeace
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
8. It was called The Surge. It was in all the papers. |
glowing
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 06:34 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Because its absolute shit. To bring it up means to hang the shit around Bush's |
|
legacy even more and it means we'd actually re-look at the horrible shit pile we are leaving there. I think we are going to sort of sneak out, but leave a lot of bases there until one day when no one is thinking about anything Iraq in America, sees and extraction like in Vietnam because the Iraqi people want them out.
|
anigbrowl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 06:39 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Well, if you followed Obama's campaign and the agenda he laid out... |
|
...it would make sense. We have wound down our activities in Iraq considerably, in preparation for a withdrawal. The country has become considerably less dangerous (not = safe) in the last year. Meantime, Obama said as far back as 20067 that he felt it was important to focus renewed attention on the conflict in Afghanistan, where we had an actual mandate.
|
Proud Liberal Dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
and it made a LOT of sense to me. I'm really surprised at the sudden intense opposition, at least here, to re-focusing on Afghanistan, particularly since we have more of a reason to be concerned about it. I also don't get all of the Vietnam comparisons either.
|
lapfog_1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 06:46 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Are military is no longer "engaged" in Iraq. |
|
We have withdrawn to our fortified bases within the country, with the exception of the "green zone" (which could be construed as a large military base). We only come out to engage in "police action" at the request of the Iraqi government. Now, that accounts only for the military, the private contractors are another matter... but even they have taken a "heads down" profile recently.
I don't know what the military casualties have been in Iraq in the last few months, but they haven't been that many, probably under 50 for the entire summer.
I think there is a sense from the media and the white house that the Iraq war is "over" and the the Afghan war is "re-started". Hence the focus on Afghanistan.
|
zbdent
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. The "liberal media" had to focus on a new "Vietnam" for Obama ... |
|
remember, not long ago, they touted the "bloodiest month" in Afghanistan ... UNDER OBAMA ... can't have any success for Obama, or the Repugniconvicts will start throwing up new firestorms (mountains from molehills) ...
Look ... an ACORN!
|
sandnsea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. Except the real liberal media did help |
|
And have attacked him on Afghanistan as hard as the right has tried to exploit it.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 18th 2024, 01:16 PM
Response to Original message |