Letter from Vice President Biden Regarding Afghanistan

[jefferson_dem]

This just landed in my in box, and many of yours too i'm sure.

:patriot:

XXXX--

Last night, President Obama laid out his plan to defend our national interest by refocusing our efforts on three clear goals: defeating al Qaeda, stabilizing Pakistan, and breaking the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan.

To achieve these goals, the President has authorized the rapid deployment of 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan, with a firm commitment to begin bringing our troops home in 2011.

It's a clean break from the failed Afghanistan policy of the Bush administration, and a new, focused strategy that can succeed.

Please take a moment to watch the President's address to the nation and read more about his plan.

Our new strategy ends the era of blank checks for Afghanistan's leaders, facilitates a responsible transition to Afghan security forces, and begins bringing our troops home in 2011.

Please take a moment to listen to President Obama outline his plan -- and pass this along to anyone you know who wants to learn more:

http://my.barackobama.com/AfghanistanAddress

Thank you,

Vice President Joe Biden

[onehandle]

1. The Joe is wise. nt

[Cha]

2. Thanks VP Biden for laying out exactly what's

going on..just like the President did.

[Clio the Leo]

3. Joe is supersexy!

And I thought he was dissenting? ;)

We got trial ballooned Tommy! We got trial ballooned! lol

[mike_c]

4. lies, as usual on this topic from this administration....

President Obama laid out his plan to defend our national interest by refocusing our efforts on three clear goals: defeating al Qaeda, stabilizing Pakistan, and breaking the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan.

National interest: I dispute that the war in Afghanistan serves our national interest. It certainly does serve the interests of the energy corporations, the "defense" industry, and the Pentagon. The subtext is that the national security is at risk if we don't "finish" the war in Afghanistan, but that is patently absurd. Afghanistan has never threatened the U.S. and will not in the foreseeable future. It is a feudal territory, a nation in name only with little or no central political organization and no coherent military force. It's population is primarily subsistence agricultural-- it's a nation of goat herders, farmers, tribal members, and petty warlords. It is NO threat to the U.S. national security or interest except as noted above-- the energy industry wants a natural gas pipeline through central Asia, the MIC wants the trainloads of money they're transferring from the Treasury, and the Pentagon gains political power whenever the nation is "at war." Even with medieval goatherds.

Our own intelligence reports there are few, if any, al-Qaeda in Afhanistan, certainly fewer than 100. There are currently 65,000 troops fighting those "fewer than a hundred al-Qaeda" in Afghanistan, and we're sending 30,000 more, and asking allies to pony up even more. That is absurd in the extreme. The emperor is naked, folks. There is NO al-Qaeda threat worth mentioning in Afghanistan.

Stabilizing Pakistan? Mission creep? Only empires (or aspiring emperors) target other, sovereign nations for military stabilization when they don't like their internal affairs. In any event, this is an impossible task.

Breaking the Taliban's momentum? No one likes to discuss the Bush administration decision to attack Afghanistan and depose the Taliban, in contravention of international law-- that decision was formalized on Sept. 10, 2001. The day BEFORE 9/11. A decision driven mainly by economic interests. The anti-Taliban bluster of post-9/11 allowed that clandestine decision to be hauled out and run up the flag pole, but it's still morally bankrupt. The Taliban had NOTHING to do with 9/11, they have no international agenda, and even the weak excuse that they sheltered bin Laden fails to acknowledge that they offered to turn him over to an impartial government-- if the U.S. would only provide some evidence against him-- that's the norm for international extradition requests. The U.S. refused, preferring war and invasion to negotiation and peace. Oh, and that natural gas pipeline.

Biden's email pumps all the patriotic jingoism, but conveniently sidesteps the truth in every way possible. And that's only the first sentence!

Let's look at the second sentence:

...the President has authorized the rapid deployment of 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan, with a firm commitment to begin bringing our troops home in 2011.

Firm committment? What's the administration really committing to? An end date to the war? No, it's just as utterly open ended today as it was two years ago-- and eight years ago. Obama has used a neat rhetorical device to promise something without really promising anything. He made no committment to EVER actually ending the war, and the history of U.S. conflicts does not bode well when the administration promises to end them by becoming much more deeply involved.

I'll wager you this: U.S. troops will still be fighting in Afghanistan ten years from now unless the Afghans defeat us-- unlikely, at least militarily-- or unless the U.S. public grows tired enough to demand a real change. But Obama's "promise" is utterly worthless because it ultimately promises NOTHING.

It's a clean break from the failed Afghanistan policy of the Bush administration, and a new, focused strategy that can succeed.

It's a continuation of the failed Bush policies in all but name-- so much so that it's endorsers include Lindsey Graham, Newt Gingrich, and Karl Rove. Do you really think any of those people would stand and cheer for a repudiation of the Bush doctrine in Afghanistan? Calling it different does not make it so, except maybe in American politics, where the same old bull-in-a-china-shop international thuggery can be made to pass for "a new, focused strategy" as easily as the emperor can change clothes.

It's all utter BS and lies.