The (Afghanistan) Surge Is Working

[NJmaverick]

Even as the Marines' battle for Marja grabs headlines, it's diverting attention from a bigger story. Though the Taliban is entrenched in Helmand province, where Marja is situated, its grip is slipping in the rest of Afghanistan as President Barack Obama's 30,000-troop surge unfolds.

These developments undercut the common belief that America is doomed to fail in a land of fiercely tribal, pro-Taliban Pashtuns who hate infidel invaders. In fact, Afghanistan's demography, sociology, military situation, and politics all favor Obama's counterinsurgency strategy. That's why it's working.

The strategy, devised by U.S. and NATO commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal, aims to win over Afghans by protecting them from the Taliban, restraining firepower to limit civilian casualties, and speeding up development, along with seizing Taliban sanctuaries like Marja. It has six things going for it.


Most Afghans aren't Pashtuns —and most Pashtuns oppose the Taliban. Three fifths of Afghans are Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazara, and other ethnicities who suffered under Taliban rule and dread its return. What's more, while most Taliban fighters are Pashtun, 70 percent of Pashtuns dislike the Taliban. Only one Pashtun in four favors the insurgents. Most Pashtuns desire closer ties with the West. Why? Polls say they, like other Afghans, mainly want jobs, electricity, and reconstruction—none of which the Taliban offers.

MORE GOOD NEWS HERE:


http://www.newsweek.com/id/234191

[Oregone]

1. Liberal occupations make me feel asskickingly patriotic

I don't even care about shit like this either:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/roadside-bomb-kills-family-of-11-in-southern-afghanistan/article1484414/

[NJmaverick]

5. Liberals seem to be more skilled at dealing with insurgencies

than the right. Probably because the right's simplistic thinking limits their ability to conduct smart operations.

[harkadog]

73. Yes that worked so well in Vietnam didn't it?

[NJmaverick]

125. This is not your father's insurgency

[harkadog]

147. Yes I know. I was there in 2002.

But I'm sure you will continue to tell us how to "win" it. Do you buy that we will be "winding down" our operations there in 2011 like Obama says? How very LBJ like of him. Always next year. For sure this time.

[amborin]

2. working to keep Karzai's mansions in Dubai!

[laststeamtrain]

3. "The (Afghanistan) Surge Is Working" in my magic pro-war happy place. Pass the Oxy. n/t.

[NJmaverick]

4. It's funny how many will deny the reality of the situation

then turn around and ironically accuse others of being in a "happy place":eyes: Sorry your predictions of doom and gloom were proven wrong.

[laststeamtrain]

6. "It's funny how many" embeds it takes to catapult the propaganda. n/t

[Oregone]

11. The reality is that there is no legitimate, non corrupt government for the Afghans to endorse

The best guerrilla war effort cannot result to much

[NJmaverick]

14. What about Parliament????

[PacerLJ35]

29. Try finding any "non-corrupt" organization in that part of the world and I'll give you a candybar

Arabs, Pashtuns, whatever...in my extensive dealings with those societies, corruption, bribes and other ways of doing business that we in the West see as "bad" is seen as the norm. And complaining about it is also the norm. It's their way of saving face to not look weak.

IMO, we aren't going to see a "non-corrupt" government in that region of the world anytime soon. "Functioning" should be the better yardstick.

[Oregone]

53. Yeah, and it sort of undermines the entire war too

[PacerLJ35]

54. Not hardly

What these people need is a stable government that isn't hellbent on killing half the population for things like watching television. Corruption is just something that is ingrained in the cultures...so using corruption as a measurement of success is guaranteed to result in failure. Using stability is a much better indicator.

[Oregone]

56. In the middle of a guerrilla war, you don't seem to think its important to have a government

...percieved as legit? You don't think the insurgency is fueled by the perception that a foreign entity is propping up a corrupt puppet regime?


Its a problem, no matter how much you tell yourself it isn't

[PacerLJ35]

I'm very familiar with counter-insurgency ops

I advised the Iraqi Air Force and MoD a year ago. Yes, of course it's important to have a legitimate government. But what's needed is a government that's generally respected by the populace and recognized as the government. All of the articles you read over here focusing on corruption are written from a western view. Rule #1 of advising the Iraqis I learned was to stop "mirroring", or trying to fit my value systems on their way of doing things. Yes, they complained bitterly about the government, but at the same time they recognized that the government in Baghdad was a legit government. It's confusing for you to understand because you can't think like their culture thinks...in fact it took me a very long time to even remotely begin to understand their system without doing a face palm and saying "wow, this is fucked up"....because while to me it was fucked up, to them it was business as usual.

Karzai's biggest issue isn't corruption. It's acceptance. And acceptance has little to do with corruption, and more to do with his perception of strength.

[Oregone]

80. If strength is all they are looking for, this war would of been over 8 years ago

[PacerLJ35]

105. You apparently only like to pay attention to pieces of my posts

The need a stable government that's legitimate and strong enough to gain the following of the majority of the people in the country, without using tactics like slaughtering them as the Taliban did. Ok, now that's about the third time I've said that...hopefully it will sink in.

[Flaneur]

96. You're basing this on one Newsweek story?

I saw the Blitzer asking an analyst about this today, and the analyst replied, "What is Newsweek smoking?"

[deaniac21]

7. Bush war...BAD Obama war....GOOD!

[NJmaverick]

10. Obama smart... Bush stupid

that is why things are going better

[harkadog]

77. How are you measuring "things going better"?

Because Obama has killed more #2s than Bush did? Along with who knows how many civilians each of whom has surviving family members who have sworn a blood oath of revenge against the U.S.

[NJmaverick]

132. Read the article, in fact learn all you can about what is going on

then you will see how much better things are going.

[harkadog]

148. I love armchair generals.

[deaniac21]

151. It would be better if we weren't there.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NYC_SKP]

75. Best reply in this thread: GOOD! n/t

[arcadian]

82. So it doesn't matter that innocent people are being killed

at all. Just that you feel good about the President.

[NoSheep]

65. War for profit...BAD...try to end it...Good.

[The_Casual_Observer]

8. Marja Marja Marja

It's the strategy to re-winover the US citizens about that crazy war. Newsweek was convinced about WMD in Iraq too.

[NJmaverick]

9. Your statement is untrue

Newsweek ran a damning article about an informant (that was later killed by Saddam) saying there WERE NO WMDs.

[The_Casual_Observer]

15. I remember that one, not "damning" at all.

Unfortunately, Newsweek chose a curious way to handle its scoop: The magazine placed the story in the miscellaneous "Periscope" section with a generic headline, "The Defector's Secrets." Worse, Newsweek's online version added a subhead that seemed almost designed to undercut the importance of the story: "Before his death, a high-ranking defector said Iraq had not abandoned its WMD ambitions." No major U.S. newspapers or national television news shows picked up the Newsweek story.

[NJmaverick]

16. That pretty much disputes your claims though

[The_Casual_Observer]

18. Nope,it was Feb 27 2003. It was the one. It was a piss poor nothing

considering what was about to happen.

This latest campaign is classic psy-ops packaged to make us think "we can win this gosh darn thing if we stick to it!". It's so fucking transparent that it's being discussed openly in the press. The Marja deal is an orchestrated farce

[NJmaverick]

20. You falsely claimed the opposite. Just because you don't like where it was placed in their

publication, doesn't change the fact that you were wrong (just like you are now in terms of the Afghan war)

[The_Casual_Observer]

23. Time will tell, won't it?

I'd go ahead & get the newsweek articles about Iraq, but I've lost interest in this thread.

[NJmaverick]

26. Yes as time passes those that opposed the Afghan stategy

are looking more and more wrong.

[The_Casual_Observer]

35. How much time, need 10 more years perhaps? 20? 50?

[Flaneur]

98. You're really getting sort of pathetic with this.

Latch onto one half-witted Newsweek article and declare victory.

[NJmaverick]

120. Unlike the vast majority of the opinion pieces posted, this author

is actually QUALIFIED to speak on his topic

[tekisui]

99. Marja today, Kandahar tomorrow. They can PR successes

for a while. It only goes so far when record numbers of bodies are coming home.

Over a third of all US deaths in Afghanistan have come under Obama. It will be half sometime in the next year.

[The_Casual_Observer]

104. Marja today, Kandahar tomorrow, marja the next day, Kandahar the day after that

How many fucking times have we "won" there & Iraq, and then find out that due to some error in judgment of some sort, it's time go back & win again.

[ipaint]

12. 2009 was again the most lethal year for Afghan civilians

2009 was again the most lethal year for Afghan civilians in the American-led war since the fall of the Taliban government in late 2001. According to the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), 2,412 civilians were killed by the war in 2009, a jump of 14% over the number that lost their lives in 2008. An additional 3,566 Afghan civilians were wounded as a result of the war in 2009.<24><23>

Of these, UNAMA attributed two-thirds, or 1,630, of the deaths to the action of anti-government forces, around a quarter, 596, of the deaths to action by American-led military forces, and was not able to clearly attribute another 186 civilian deaths to any one side. Airstrikes continued to be the main cause of civilian deaths resulting from US-led military action, with 359 Afghan civilians killed by US/NATO airstrikes in 2009.<24>

In addition to a growing number of Afghan civilians being killed, Afghan populations caught in the eight-year war have also suffered from loss of livelihood, displacement, and the destruction of their homes, property, and personal assets.<24>

In its mid-year report, the UNAMA underlined that "if the non-combatant status of one or more victim(s) remains under significant doubt, such deaths are not included in the overall number of civilian casualties. Thus, there is a significant possibility that UNAMA is under-reporting civilian casualties."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#Civilian_and_overall_casualties_.282009.29

I guess it depends on who you talk to.

[NJmaverick]

13. Thanks to the Taliban. NATO had reduced their accidental deaths by 30%

[Robb]

17. The Taliban executed twice that many in a single afternoon at Mazar-e Sharif.

Learn some history.

[ipaint]

34. I'm referring to the united states not the taliban.

And like I said it depends on who you talk to. If your a civilian all we are is another new enemy killing more innocent civilians.

If your a warmonger looking for some good PR spin the sanitized, the surge is working, pretty much whitewashes the human cost making it easy to swallow.

Choose your poison.

[Robb]

36. You're comparing 600 deaths to several thousand. Disingenuous at best.

If you're a civilian, you're dying less in the height of this war than you did in the 90's under Taliban infighting.

Your propaganda campaign needs remedial math.

[ipaint]

58. I guess us and the taliban have something in common.

Especially when you add in iraq.

[PacerLJ35]

66. Not really

We don't haul dozens of civilians outside and murder them in cold blood. Civilian deaths due to US action is primarily limited to accidental actions.

[Flaneur]

102. You mean like those 8 students a few weeks ago?

[PacerLJ35]

106. I'm sorry but no, we don't

And if US troops do kill innocent civilians for no reason, our policy is to hold them accountable. It's not US policy to do so. I can't say the same for the Taliban.

[Flaneur]

101. What are you talking about?

The only massacre at Mazar I know about is when our ally, Gen. Dostum, killed thousands of Taliban prisoners shortly after the initial invasion.

[Robb]

117. Keep trying, noble Wikipedia Warrior.

[asdjrocky]

21. Fuck war.

[NJmaverick]

22. War is hell, but sometimes one doesn't have a choice

Obama couldn't walk away and abandon the Afghan people to the horrible Taliban, that would have been immoral.

[asdjrocky]

24. Fuck war.

[NJmaverick]

25. Enjoy your black and white thinking

[asdjrocky]

28. Fuck war.

[PacerLJ35]

31. Yep, I agree...we shouldn't have opposed Hitler, Tojo or any of the other idiots in past history

[NJmaverick]

32. Now there you go being all logical and reasonable

:spank:

[proteus_lives]

55. The photo of Zinn says it all for some.

That saying is "Nothing is worth fighting for".

[Warren Stupidity]

60. Zinn and WWII

Eager to fight fascism, Zinn joined the Army Air Force during World War II where he was assigned as a bombardier in the 490th Bombardment Group.<7> bombing targets in Berlin, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary.<8> The anti-war stance Zinn developed later was informed, in part, by his experiences. In April, 1945, he participated in the first military use of napalm, which took place in Royan.<9>


...

Zinn described how the bombing was ordered—three weeks before the war in Europe ended—by military officials who were, in part, motivated more by the desire for career advancement than legitimate military objectives. He quotes the official history of the U.S. Army Air Forces' brief reference to the Eighth Air Force attack on Royan and also, in the same chapter, to the bombing of Pilsen in what was then Czechoslovakia. The official history stated, that the famous Skoda works in Pilsen "received 500 well-placed tons, and that "Because of a warning sent out ahead of time the workers were able to escape, except for five persons."
Zinn wrote, "I recalled flying on that mission, too, as deputy lead bombardier, and that we did not aim specifically at the "skoda works" (which I would have noted, because it was the one target in Czechoslovakia I had read about) but dropped our bombs, without much precision, on the city of Pilsen. Two Czech citizens who lived in Pilsen at the time told me, recently, that several hundred people were killed in that raid (that is, Czechs)--not five."<10>

Zinn said his experience as a wartime bombardier, combined with his research into the reasons for, and effects of the bombing of Royan and Pilsen, sensitized him to the ethical dilemmas faced by G.I.s during wartime.<11> Zinn questioned the justifications for military operations that inflicted massive civilian casualties during the Allied bombing of cities such as Dresden, Royan, Tokyo, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, Hanoi during the U.S. War in Vietnam, and Baghdad during the U.S. war in Iraq and the civilian casualties during bombings in Afghanistan during the U.S.'s current and nearly decade old war there. In his pamphlet, Hiroshima: Breaking the Silence<12> written in 1995, he laid out the case against targeting civilians with aerial bombing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn#World_War_II

Fuck War. Fuck the jingoist bullshit. Fuck the rationals for industrialized slaughter.

[PacerLJ35]

62. I've got news for you

The US doesn't "target civilians with aerial bombing".

[Warren Stupidity]

64. Of course not.

As we all know, anyone we kill is by definition not a civilian. Keep that comfort blanket wrapped tight.

[PacerLJ35]

Have you ever seen what goes into targeting?

I have...I've worked in the CAOC, which runs air ops in the middle east. I'm quite familiar with what goes into developing target lists and the decision chain for weapons release from any US aircraft. It's very complex, and it includes numerous restrictions specificially designed to limit or avoid civilian casualties. I promise the Taliban does not operate with that in mind.

[Ignis]

155. "anyone we kill is by definition not a civilian"

And anyone we kill is an evildoer. That's why we're somehow always the Good Guys.

Isn't amazing how many evildoers congregate at weddings in Afghanistan? :shrug:

[Fumesucker]

67. The US does not torture, either. n/t

[PacerLJ35]

70. What the CIA does and what the DoD does are two different things

I'm tired of people on here that take the simplistic notion that the US military simply levels anything and kills everything. It's not even close to reality.

[Fumesucker]

72. Eh, I was a Marine 69 to 72

And the CIA is not part of the US government?

[PacerLJ35]

74. Let's not be coy here

The CIA and the US military aren't interoperated. You were a Marine from 69-72...great. You served for 3 years over 4 decades ago. I've been in the Army and Air Force from 1992 to the present and spent four tours in the middle east so far. We can sit and compare our experiences all you want. The military of today isn't the military of 1970. My dad was in the Army from 1972-1992, and grandfather from 1942-1973. The organization I belong to now is vastly different from the one they were in. Comparing the US military to covert CIA ops is apples and oranges.

[Fumesucker]

76. In the first place, I never mentioned the military..

I said "the US doesn't torture", the CIA is an arm of the US government.

And in the second place, I was pointing out that I'm not totally unfamiliar with the military, which is what you seemed to be implying.

I guess it wasn't the military that was running Abu Ghraib?

[PacerLJ35]

79. The facility at Abu Graib wasn't operated in a manner consistent with legal doctrine

People lost their jobs and went to jail over Abu Graib. It was "run" by the military but the CIA was involved in the facility, and often their involvement wasn't a sanctioned event by CENTCOM. My point being is people broke the rules, and there was an attempt to find people accountable there. The military doesn't have a policy to kill civilians or torture people.

My second point isn't that you're completely unfamiliar with the military, it's just that your experience is far out of date, and the military you belonged to had a far different culture, rules and ethics than the current military. How many times were you trained on the Laws of Warfare, or given examples of what's an illegal order?

[Fumesucker]

81. Only lower ranks were subject to any sort of severe punishment at Abu Ghraib..

If the officers didn't know what was going on there they were criminally incompetent.

And who was in charge in Gitmo?

I can show you an example of criminal negligence at the very top of the chain of command of the US military for which there has been zero punishment handed out.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_09/009469.php

"HE WOULD FIRE THE NEXT PERSON THAT SAID THAT"....Today, via Orin Kerr, comes a remarkable interview with Brigadier General Mark Scheid, chief of the Logistics War Plans Division after 9/11, and one of the people with primary responsibility for war planning. Shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan, he says, Donald Rumsfeld told his team to start planning for war in Iraq, but not to bother planning for a long stay:

"The secretary of defense continued to push on us ... that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."

Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation.

Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said.

"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.

[PacerLJ35]

107. There were a number of officers that were also held accountable...

Those that were punished the harshest were the ones who were actually performing the acts. Officers were relieved or otherwise punished for their lack of leadership and oversight.

[Fumesucker]

109. Yep, if I hire a hit man only he should be severely punished..

I should only get a slap on the wrist, after all I didn't actually commit a murder.

[Warren Stupidity]

116. pathetic

[Warren Stupidity]

112. Oddly, the torture centers at Baghram and Gitmo operated in much

the same way. How could that happen?

[PacerLJ35]

139. Have you ever seen a REAL "torture center"? I have...

Drills with human flesh still on the bits. Blood spattered across the walls. Saws...knives...all sorts of instruments to cause pain, suffering and death. And it wasn't US run...it was an al Qaeda-based torture chamber. It was disgusting and made my stomach turn.

I won't deny that US service personnel have committed wrongs, but the difference is that we as a society (and our laws) attempt to hold those people accountable. Be it as it may, many of the things that people say are "torture", I have endured while attending SERE courses. It sucks, it's uncomfortable and I'd never want to do it again. But it pales in comparison to what I saw in Baghdad at the hands of the "freedom fighters" as some would call them.

[rusty fender]

152. While the techniques for you were uncomfortable,

they've been deadly for many others. You are really, really good at justifying killing, in the name of saving, in your own mind.

[PacerLJ35]

167. You're talking about two different things

The "interrogation techniques that were approved for use aren't lethal. The abuse at the hands of US military or CIA that have resulted in deaths were, and are, illegal. Those "methods" (ie, beatings, shoving broom sticks up rear ends, etc) weren't approved, they weren't part of policy, and those involved were investigated and either brought to trial or otherwise disciplined.

The interrogation techniques I spoke of were the ones that were legally authorized by the military (ie, walling, sleep deprivation, use of fear, etc). It's standard for people who attend SERE courses to be subjected to what used to be approved (Obama has since outlawed them) techniques. It's not fun, and yes it sucks pretty bad...but those techniques are not lethal.

I am not justifying cold blooded murder. I have never advocated killing people "just because". I do not advocate anything that is truly cruel and inhumane. It's my personal position that the approved techniques weren't cruel. As I said, they certainly weren't fun, and I don't want to do it again...but it's not anywhere close to what I saw in Baghdad at the hands of al Qaeda and other terror/insurgent cells. Not even close.

Here's the bottom line:

US- civilian deaths occur from accidents, goes to great lengths to avoid casualties if possible...prosecutes individuals responsible for breaking the laws of warfare.

Enemy- Murders civilians if suspected of helping the US...doesn't care if civilians get in the way...does nothing to prevent civilian deaths, and in fact purposefully murders civilians for terror effect...murders and brutally tortures as standard operating procedure.

[asdjrocky]

83. Really?

I'll let the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that right away.

God what a stupid statement.

[PacerLJ35]

108. No, your lack of context is stupid

I'm speaking of current targeting practice....not what happened 70 years ago.

[proteus_lives]

68. Zinn said we shouldn't have fought the nazis.

Fuck utopians.

[Warren Stupidity]

113. Well no, that is not what he said.

Here is what he actually said:

"It was a war against an enemy of unspeakable evil. Hitler's Germany was extending totalitarianism, racism, militarism, and overt aggressive warfare beyond what an already cynical world had experienced. And yet, did the governments conducting this war-England, the United States, the Soviet Union-represent something significantly different, so that their victory would be a blow to imperialism, racism, totalitarianism, militarism, in the world?
Would the behavior of the United States during the war-in military action abroad, in treatment of minorities at home-be in keeping with a "people's war"? Would the country's wartime policies respect the rights of ordinary people everywhere to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? And would postwar America, in its policies at home and overseas, exemplify the values for which the war was supposed to have been fought?
These questions deserve thought. At the time of World War II, the atmosphere was too dense with war fervor to permit them to be aired. "

Much more here: http://libcom.org/history/world-war-ii-peoples-war-howard-zinn

it is a little more complicated than your pathetic nonsense.

[PacerLJ35]

61. Then nothing is worth living for

[asdjrocky]

84. Yeah, that Zinn guy..

always talking about radical notions like peace.

How can we take something like that seriously?

FUCK WAR.

[proteus_lives]

86. There is peace then there is Utopian foolishness.

Zinn thought we shouldn't have fought the Nazis. After that I couldn't take him seriously.

[asdjrocky]

87. That's okay, I stopped taking people like you seriously long ago.

[proteus_lives]

88. Your ideas and positions can't take the debate,

We all all know that.

It's why you can't talk about it. It's ok but a lot of people come to DU for discussion/debate and to comment. If you can't take that then maybe you should reconsider posting on political website.

[asdjrocky]

89. Thanks for the advice, and have a nice day.

Fuck war.

[proteus_lives]

91. See?

You have no response.

You should work on that, if you open yourself to another people's ideas then you'll grow. I didn't dismiss Zinn until after I read several of his books.

You should work on being open-minded.

[asdjrocky]

94. Usually when I say have a nice day, people know I'm done talking to them.

You should work on that.

[proteus_lives]

95. Oh, well. Off you go.

Too bad you couldn't contribute to the conversation.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. plus we broke it we own it

and toss in an evil saddam while we're there. What an oxygoreon

[spoony]

110. When do we begin our moral invasions to free the other oppressed peoples

of the world? With neolibs, who needs neocons?

[wuushew]

27. +1

:thumbsup:

[G_j]

30. Is this the same dude in 2007? "There are grounds for hope in Afghanistan"

am I having a Deja Vu?

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13627/there_are_grounds_for_hope_in_afghanistan.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F4479%2Fcraig_charney

There are grounds for hope in Afghanistan

Authors:
Craig Charney, President, Charney Research
Isobel Coleman, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy

June 18, 2007
Globe and Mail

As the Taliban and NATO spring offensives grind on, many people’s perceptions of Afghanistan are pessimistic. Some say our Western efforts have changed nothing, so we will fail: The ongoing abuses against women, corruption, and warlordism are opening the door to the Taliban. Others say unless we change nothing, we will fail: Steps towards gender equality and democracy are disturbing a male-dominated, ultra-conservative society and reviving Taliban support.

These perspectives miss the real grounds for hope in Afghanistan: Afghans themselves are changing their society, with Afghan women playing a leading role. Despite the Taliban’s military revival, Afghan women have won broad support for their rights to study, work, and vote, largely gained since the Taliban’s 2001 ouster, and overwhelmingly reject their former oppressors. But, at the same time, Afghans are struggling to reconcile many of their Islamic traditions with the modern world, as the case of women also shows.

The stereotype of a tribal society resistant to all change does injustice to most Afghans, who want a society very different from that which the Taliban imposed. But applying unrealistic yardsticks to Afghanistan leaves us unable to see important changes taking place there. If we are to respect the Afghans’ reform consensus, we must support the incremental progress under way and accept their limits to change.


..more..

member, Council on Foreign Relations,
http://www.cfr.org/bios/4479/craig_charney.html

[Robb]

46. It is the same guy.

Actually reading to the end of his 2007 article you'd find him considerably less optimistic than he seems today.

Interesting nonetheless.

[NJmaverick]

121. Yes this guy is qualified to write about the regiion

as he has the background and experience to voice an informed opinion.

[G_j]

138. his optimism in 2007

didn't pan out too well, and his optimism in 2010 remains to be justified. IMO.

Does anyone remember all the rosy evaluations we were treated to during the Vietnam war?

[Robb]

140. Did you even read the article you linked to?

This doesn't sound particularly bullish. :shrug:

...Of course, if we persevere, success in Afghanistan is likely to be partial at best. It will look less like paradise than like Pakistan: a violent, underdeveloped Pashtun tribal belt in the South and East, and corruption-plagued semi-normality elsewhere. Yet such a state would be many Afghans’ dream — while a Taliban comeback is their nightmare, as well as ours.

[NJmaverick]

141. Read the whole article and not just your select postings

he was realistic and correct in his assessments

[G_j]

142. I read it

my 'select postings' were the opening paragraphs of the article as it was written.

[spanone]

33. shhhh....only republicans can fight the bad guys

[branders seine]

37. Yep! Making the Middle East safe for capitalism!

God Bless America!

Good publicity for warmongering!

We should kill another batch of civilians in 10, 9, 8, ...






(Never mind the only real "enemy" is across the border in Pakistan. You can "win" a game of whack-a-mole if you buy as many hammers as holes and build a machine to swing them all at once. Here, let me and my kids and grandkids write another check to pay for hammers.)

[Robb]

38. Actually, 8 civilians were killed today.

...However, since they were killed by the Taliban you don't seem to care.

Not a peep from the usual "Obama is a warmonger" suspects on that story. Not one.

[branders seine]

44. what makes you say I don't care?

You have no evidence of that. You just made it up and then threw it at me like a bomb. Terrorist!

[Robb]

50. I see no evidence to the contrary.

Please, point me to a thread where you have bemoaned the number of innocents killed by the Taliban. I would like to be wrong.

I expect I shall however find you in many having bemoaned the civilian deaths caused by ISAF and US forces. Shall we see?

[branders seine]

169. please point me to proof that you are not a pedophile,

bomb-throwing terrorist!

I expect there are none!

[NJmaverick]

122. Apparently the "warmonger" label is one of convenience

[Warren Stupidity]

39. I am shocked that you are now boosting this war.

[NYC_SKP]

78. Presumtuous.

OP offers no personal insight, shares a piece about progress toward resolution.

Really, calling that war boosterism is silliness.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren Stupidity]

114. Perhaps you forgot to read the thread or do any research?

The OP's idiocy is well established.

[NJmaverick]

119. A lot of people smeared President Obama

when he took the moral course and refused to abandon the Afghan people to the mercies of the horrible Taliban. Now that the plans are starting to work, they are getting desperate and are taking liberties with the facts.

[NYC_SKP]

137. That's a fact. It's where many members and I have to part ways. There's no discussion...

Just name calling.

Oversimplification of facts to justify an absolutist POV.

All war bad. Guns bad. Pot good. All teachers and unions good, they can do no wrong.

Well, if the point of departure is that there are never exceptions or nuances...

...the the people with whom we are arguing are a waste of time.

In real life, I wouldn't care to know them, much less try to have a conversation of substance.

:donut:

[jonnyblitz]

165. oversimplification is agreeing with everything Obama is for

and then rationalizing it all from there. I think you are a HYPOCRITE.

[NYC_SKP]

166. I disagree with Obama on a number of things.

I imagine there are some who agree with him on everything, but that would be pretty silly.

I'm sure I defend him more than criticize him.

There are PLENTY others here who cover that action.

[Political Heretic]

41. Define "working"

[Starry Messenger]

118. Fattening his 401k. n/t

[NJmaverick]

127. All you care about is your 401K?!?

[NJmaverick]

126. The Taliban losing power and control and the Country becoming more stable

and safe

[Political Heretic]

159. Hmm... that isn't how I would define "working." And even if I did its a little premature

to make such a claim.

[bluestateguy]

42. Regardless of whether or not you supported the troop increase

We all should root for our troops in the field--and by implication, America--to succeed.

[Political Heretic]

43. um... no.

How about we root for our troops in the field--and by implication, America--to come the fuck home where they belong.

[asdjrocky]

85. You would have fit right in with the "love it or leave it" crowd during the Viet Nam war.

[Puglover]

128. He was on vacation for awhile I think.

He must be back now as this drek is popping up again like turds in a punchbowl.

[NJmaverick]

124. You are absolutely correct, but sadly what you said is not happening

[SammyWinstonJack]

158. That's just silly.

:patriot: :silly:

[Zhade]

45. Not for the dead innocent Afghanis, it isn't.

NT!

[Robb]

48. I am unconvinced.

If you truly cared a whit for "dead innocent Afghanis," you'd be aware they are dying with less frequency than they did before 2001.

They are still dying at an unacceptable rate, however. I think we can all agree on this.

[NJmaverick]

123. For the millions of live Afghans it certainly is

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. The Light at the End of the Tunnel flickers again..and again..and again.

[warm regards]

49. Surges always work...

what happens afterward is the hard part.

[Robb]

51. Very, very true. nt

[sendero]

57. Exactly..

... I'm nothing short of amused at all of this celebratory nonsense.

The only way things will stay as we want them in Iraq or Afghanistan is if we stay there. And we cannot afford to stay forever, we will have to leave at some point.

When the bribes and bullshit stops, these societies will revert to their normal patterns and it won't be pretty.

100% of this effort is a complete and total waste.

[tabasco]

52. Good news outrages republicans and utopians.

Please stop posting!

[Lorien]

59. Were you lovin' the war when BushCo was in charge of it? nt

[NJmaverick]

129. You love war? I don't love war, but there are times it's needed

sort of like the dentist. I don't love going to the dentist but if you want healthy teeth and gums you don't have a choice.

[tekisui]

134. DU war whores.

Hypocrisy in action. They defend war, drone attacks, indefinite detentions, the Patriot Act, sweeping torture under the rug, etc.

Anything Obama does is the perfect most appropriate action, don't you know?

The most hamstrung and weak President, according to the blind defenders. Nothing is his fault, he is doing the best EVAH!

[NoSheep]

63. Amazing what happens when the goal is NOT to keep the war machine going.

[PacerLJ35]

71. I sort of agree...

Prior to Obama, the presence in Afghanistan seemed only to keep the enemy at bay, not really defeat it. All eyes were on Iraq, and in the wrong place in my opinion. I served four tours in Iraq and advised their Air Force and MoD, and I did so out of the belief that if we broke their country we should try and help them pick up the pieces....but I still felt we had made a mistake going to Iraq when we should only focus on establishing a sense of stability in Afghanistan.

[tekisui]

97. You can't be serious. The war machine is getting

exactly what they want: More war, more profits. More contractors, more money, more troops....more war.

Afghanistan has been manna for the war machine.

[spoony]

111. The "more war to end war" crowd would be amusing, if not

for the grave subject matter that they never seem to grasp.

[NoSheep]

136. And your plan for getting out of Afghanistan an a time frame you can

agree with? Oh, and by the way....don't leave the people there in any more danger than they were in before the US got there. I protested both wars. I'm quite aware of the grave subject matter; so much so that I realize it is a bit more complicated than a cursory negative remark on DU can address.

[LanternWaste]

157. Neither admitting to, nor denying either side

Neither admitting to, nor denying either side, how then does one go about ending war in a pragmatic and realistic fashion...?

[spoony]

168. "pragmatic" has become nothing more than a code word

for compromises with things that we used to know were wrong. In other words, caving in. These arguments about what would happen if we leave, they're the same recycled crap the GOP gave us to excuse Bush's everlasting occupation. Now we're being fed the same lines from our own? Like I said, this would be funny if it weren't so damn pathetic.

[NoSheep]

170. Spoony, you are indeed a genius. What's your plan, man? When are you going to run for office?

:shrug:

[Junkdrawer]

69. Great! Can we leave now?

You know, declare victory and run away?

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NJmaverick]

131. Afraid not, things need to be finished first and then an orderly with drawl

[Robb]

133. The guy cleans the bedpan and says "ayuh?"

:D

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[usregimechange]

93. Good to hear, thanks for posting

[NJmaverick]

130. No problem, but it seems not everyone wants the good news posted

[MadBadger]

100. ...

:popcorn:

[JCMach1]

115. Let's see more control by US = less poppies, which puts more money

in the hands of the Islamo-narco rebel warlords.

Who then use the money for more weapons, more recruiting, which leads to...

:freak:

[bigtree]

135. conquest is cool

. . . don't you let any of those dead and maimed Afghans turn you off.

[NJmaverick]

143. Conquest has nothing to do with this discussion

[bigtree]

144. not in your narrow, reflexively uncritical view

[NJmaverick]

145. Not in the real world view that involves critical thinking, rational thought

and a fair assessment of the facts.

[MellowDem]

146. Uh-oh...

Didn't anyone tell you that war is evil? And that nothing can ever work and no one can ever win? It's very simple, very black and white. Why, remember all those people who claimed we'd never succeed in Iraq! And they were right!!???? Maybe??? Well, let's not get into details. Better to spout some one liners. "Fuck War!" Now I feel better.

[shotten99]

149. Political capital on tap

[pecwae]

150. What marvelous news!

War is good, remember that kids.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

153. Hope! Change! Heroin!

Ummmm......yeah.

[Echo In Light]

154. Travesty as usual

[robdogbucky]

156. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

NT

[grahamhgreen]

160. Sure - they are making money hand over fist.

[TheWatcher]

161. Ahhhh, More War Kool-Aid

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

162. Well, the Pentagon PR campaign is working. For the Afghans..not so much.

[TheWatcher]

163. But it makes him feel so good.

Isn't that all that matters?

:sarcasm:

[robdogbucky]

164. Dear Bertie Wooster:

does this all mean that when the "surge," is finished and the Taliban are waiting for us to leave, that we will then hand over control of security to the locals in Afghanistan?

Hand it over to these guys? That ought to work.


Inside Afghanistan-Fighting Alongside Stoned Afghan Soldiers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc8w0IX4UQc


Onward, through the fog (of war)



Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky