Must Watch Video: Ambassador Susan Rice on Rachel (re: Afghanistan)

[Clio the Leo]

I BEG each and every one of you to watch these videos. You have Rachel Maddow, likely not in favor of the deployment asking all of the questions her fellow skeptics have been asking and Susan Rice answering those questions on behalf of the administration.

Is this deployment another example of Bush's preemptive strikes?

Why Afghanistan (and not Florida? Or Somalia?)

What about Pakistan?

All of those issues and more are addressed.

And not only that, they discuss the matter in a intelligent and respectful manner that we could all take an example from.

If you hear NOTHING else the WH has to say on the matter, hear this....


Part 1
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#34248277

Part 2
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#34248484

.... hear it .... and THEN make up your mind.

[Cha]

1. Thank you! I was just going over to PV

to look for it.

[Blue_In_AK]

2. That was an excellent interview.

As Rachel said, Ms. Rice is very good at what she does.

[LakeSamish706]

3. Both very intelligent women for certain.. It was a great show... Although I still have...

many doubts about the Al Queda being in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I guess my doubts come from believing or not the official story of 9/11 (and I don't).

[MadMaddie]

4. I think it's more of what they are not saying

Pakistan is on the edge of destabalization, with most of Al Quida in the mountainous regions of Pakistan that is a huge red flag.

If the Pakistan government were to fall and Al Quida got hold of the Nukes, they would bomb India and eventually attack Israel.

[Clio the Leo]

5. That's what I think as well....

.... but sounds like you do not support the deployment.

Is it because you think we're better off keeping out of the mess?

[MadMaddie]

8. No I should clarify

I do believe it's a pile of shit that our military has to clean up now that they have a real plan.

I don't think we have a choice but to stay and see the destruction of the Al Quida in those mountains and to strongly encourage the Indian government to start taking care of their side of the border.

If we were to leave immedietly there would be a huge vacuuam and Afghanastan would be left horribly destabalized, Karzai is a weak corrupt official so is really is of no use for us.

[Cha]

9. Do you mean the

Pakistani Gov?

[Clio the Leo]

12. Ok, now I got'cha.....

... the notion that we SHOULDN'T be there because of Pakistan and their nukes had me scratching my head. lol

[rhett o rick]

13. I agree completely with your last sentence. But I dont believe that escalation will solve any of

that. I dont believe we can stabilize Afghanistan and I dont believe we can do anything about establishing a non-corrupt government. Our track record is horrible when we have tried elsewhere. Also, I believe these efforts in Afghanistan will have limited effect on the problems in Pakistan.

If we go broke trying to fix Afghanistan and Pakistan, we wont be able to help anyone, including our own citizens.

[Clio the Leo]

15. Why do you feel these efforts will have limited effect on Pakistan?

(not arguing, trying to understand)

[rhett o rick]

16. Seems to me that if we become successful in Afghanistan al Qaeda will

move into Pakistan.

[Clio the Leo]

17. But isn't the whole point ....

.... that by ceding Afghanistan to them, they gain all of her resources in the process? They cant move completely into Pakistan because the Pakistan gvmnt does not want them there (to the degree that the Taliban does.) Hence the fighting in Waziristan.

[rhett o rick]

25. We cant afford to try to drive "terrorist" organizations from all nations that have them.

We have tried for 9 years to get them out of Afghanistan, unsuccessfully. Why would we think we can do it now? Pakistan is a problem for the world not just the United States. We simply can not afford a prolonged war in that area. Our citizens are dying for lack of resources right here in River City.

I trust President Obama buttttttttttt, I am skeptical of all presidents telling me that they only need a few thousand deaths to WIN, but fail to tell me how I will recognize a win. Johnson, Nixon, bush* all lied about escalations.

[Clio the Leo]

26. And fortunately, we're not trying to do that.....

.... we're trying to keep them from gaining strength in Afghanistan, the only country in the world were (if the bad Taliban regains control of the government, al qaeda will have de facto control.)

Have we really tried for 9 years to get them out of Pakistan? Or was our money and energy distracted elsewhere?

At least that was what I got watching Ambassador Rice .... maybe you took something different away from watching the inerview.

[rhett o rick]

10. Sounds like the domino theory. nt

[Clio the Leo]

18. And now that I understand your post....

.... I think the lack of the Pakistan strategy dicussion (compared to what he said in March) is two-fold. It involves the CIA ..... and we cant very well make a big show of trying to defend Pakistan's plants while telling Iran they cant have any.

A sticky wicket to say the least.

[ginnyinWI]

19. reading between the lines--

listening to Susan Rice, what she didn't talk about was also important. She didn't want to talk about CIA, but it seemed like that body is operating in many countries in the area. And I do believe this is about a lot more than just Afghanistan and Al Qaeda.

[vaberella]

32. Of course----and they wuldn't hesitate to take us down too.

Which means our national security is at risk. DUers don't see that. They see this as some sort of extention of Bush. O has always said Afghanistan is hte problem and I think he will always see it as such---now Pakistan isn't helping us along.

[Misskittycat]

35. That's what I was "hearing" also from Obama's careful speech as well.

That was the big red flag of that speech, but he could only refer to it obliquely, as a matter of diplomacy, and hope people had the smarts to read between the lines.

[snake in the grass]

6. saved for later

[Cha]

7. That was a treat and my first time hearing

Susan Rice speak. President Obama has some good people around him.

What a difference between between her and john bolton.

[vaberella]

11. A very very good interview. From what I am hearing---this whole thing is a withdrawal.

It doesn't seem to me that this is really about staying---but a responsible withdrawal. We try to do as much development as we can and we get out. It's our final run and I'm all for it.

[Clio the Leo]

14. yep.

At least I hope it's our final run.

But it's definately an exit strategy, that's for certain.

[ginnyinWI]

20. and more importantly

the Afghan government is being given a deadline to get themselves together so that they will be able to resist the Taliban when we do leave. You are right, I think--it is responsible leave-taking with fair notice to the Afghans. Like Obama said, it will be part military action but part training, and part giving resources to Pakistan. The worst thing to fear is to leave and create a vacuum that will be filled by a growing faction of extremists.

[vaberella]

29. Yeah...I'm starting to see "surge" as a misnomer for what's being done.

I don't think this was in Bush's plan in Iraq. I think in Afghanistan it's all about concentrating effort (of course with armed military due to the dangerous nation that it is) and getting things done to getting out.

[impik]

21. It'a all about going out while leaving the place in a better

shape than it is now. There won't be any victory banners or parades.

[vaberella]

30. Yup, I see that. Winning is out the wndow---since it was never defined what we win.

Understood.

[lamp_shade]

22. WOW. Just WOW. This s/b required viewing, especially by all the disparagers here at DU. n/t

[annabanana]

23. A serious kick for a good thread

and a dose of prespective.

[ipaint]

24. We are the destabilizing factor.

U.S. official resigns over Afghan war
Foreign Service officer and former Marine captain says he no longer knows why his nation is fighting

"But many Afghans, he wrote in his resignation letter, are fighting the United States largely because its troops are there -- a growing military presence in villages and valleys where outsiders, including other Afghans, are not welcome and where the corrupt, U.S.-backed national government is rejected. While the Taliban is a malign presence, and Pakistan-based al-Qaeda needs to be confronted, he said, the United States is asking its troops to die in Afghanistan for what is essentially a far-off civil war.

...With "multiple, seemingly infinite, local groups," he wrote, the insurgency "is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal and external enemies. The U.S. and Nato presence in Pashtun valleys and villages, as well as Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency is justified."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html


These same facts are repeated over and over by people familiar with the area, the people and their history.
We are the problem. Our presence as an occupying force creates enemy insurgents out of local civilians with a history we not only won't acknowledge but plan to completely re-write. Do will kill them all? Flatten the country? build massive prisons?

When people like Rice discuss the war and talk as if their is no history or involvement by the people who live in afghanistan they are being disingenuous. She may want folks to believe this is all about the taliban and al qaeda and the civilians are passive bystanders but nothing could be further from the truth. They don't even call themselves afghans, we do. They identify themselves by tribe not country. Centuries of history is not going to change because we want an american style corrupt government and police force in place in 18 months.

Do people honestly think the citizens of afghan aren't aware of the hell hole we just turned iraq into. Now we set our sights on them.
This can only end badly, much the same as iraq.

[sclerite]

28. Actually, they probably don't

I am against the idea of escalation. I think the CIA and special op activities are the key and that we won't and probably shouldn't know anything about them (but should be accountable by oversight of those who do have the need to know). Having spent a lot of time in third world countries, I don't think Afghanistan is going to get its "act together" under any circumstances. I do like the exit strategy. I thought Rice was terrific (and Maddow) and she should be on many news shows far more often.

That said, to the comment above, I definitely do NOT think that Afghanistan (as a population) knows much of anything except what happens to them personally. A 90% illiteracy rate, raging poverty, large rural areas, and no infrastructure. Do you think these people have news, much less Internet and cable, much less even a TV?
I know third world countries with a 90% literacy (not illiteracy) rate that have virtually no clue what goes on outside their local community, and most of that is by talking, not by media of any sort. I feel fairly certain that the majority of the country does not even know that Obama gave that speech, but will hear about it second or third hand in days and weeks and months to come, and what they hear will be selectively tailored to how it will affect them locally and instill either a generally positive hopeful or negative fearful feeling and then they will go back to herding, farming, or their jobs until (if ever) local events or conflicts are imminent to their world and hoping their lives get better by whatever means.

[ipaint]

43. That assumes the taliban kept their mouths shut.

Not an assumption I would make. Our arrogance and hypocrisy makes too useful a tool for their local recruiters. They wouldn't even have to embellish, the truth of our behavior in iraq is nastier than anything they could make up.

There is no exit strategy. It hinges on afghanistan getting it's act together and that's not going to happen.
We will continue to create the insurgency we are fighting. Until the day comes when it becomes too costly to sell it to americans and/or the terror, terror, terror meme stops working.

Then there will be a withdrawal of some troops most likely after we finish building the bases and infrastructure necessary to tie afghanistan into our military empire in the middle east. Just like iraq the country will be left in tatters, the people crushed, the crooks in charge and american bases strategically placed in dozens of areas.

[alsame]

27. K&R - Rachel asked the right questions and Rice gave good answers. nt

[quiet.american]

31. The way Susan Rice surgically deconstructs a lot of the nonsense with *fact* is impressive.

I'm really glad Rachel has the stature to attract the A-list of our leadership, and I would like to see her hosting MTP one of these days.

My only problem with her though, is that lately she seems to be pathologically snarky. For instance, her okey-dokey/jokey intro into the segment with Ambassador Rice seemed really out of place, given the stature of her guest, and the seriousness of the topic.

Still, she is an excellent interviewer.

[Pisces]

33. Many on this board are not interested in facts. They have now decided Obama is Bush. Just like RW

fundamentalist and Sarah Palin fans. Intelligent discourse is no longer allowed.

[quiet.american]

34. I wish I could argue that that's absolutely not true, but no argument here, Pisces. nt

[vaberella]

36. Unfortunately you are 100% correct. n/t

[quiet.american]

45. Omg, vaberella -- just really read your sig line. Omg. lol -- or else have to cry.

"The Black will take over." OMG.

[goclark]

41. K and R

[SpartanDem]

37. Thanks for posting

I think many progressives seems determined to make the same mistakes that were made in the 1980's by leaving an unstable country in political vacuum. It was a mistake when Reagan, et al. thought they could simply wash their hands of the country once the Soviets were driven out. It is a mistake to think that us not having troops in country is the equivalent to peace. The question what kind of peace will they have and for how long? There is a large civilan element to this mission was ignored for the past 8, but I get the feeling a lot people just don't care they want troops gone and they want peace even if it's peace in name only.

[Blue_In_AK]

38. I think Ms. Rice is probably correct

that Al Qaeda is a threat to the United States, and many other countries, as well, since we're not the only ones who have been "terrorized," which makes me wonder why we seem to be the only country with many boots on the ground. If these people operating in Pakistan are indeed such a threat, then why aren't all the other concerned nations stepping up to the plate to do their part. I'm tired of the United States being put in the position of "bad cop" over and over again.

I wish we were Norway.

[goclark]

40. I love Norway but I'd rather be an American

and I was extremely impressed with the knowledge displayed by these two outstanding women.
:patriot:

For so many years, Men were the only ones that were allowed to talk in depth regarding War -- this proved that Women should be given opportunities to understand what is happening in our world and express their thoughts to a World audience.

PS/ I am not counting Candy CRAWLley as anything but a Mouth Piece for MSM.

[Hutzpa]

39. Nice to see two of my favorite women

discussing this in depth, this makes it much more clearer to those who are
willfully trying to diminish the decision of the President.

Hey DU, we are no longer in opposition, so lets stop acting like it.

[goclark]

42. I can't find the video now for Link Part 2

:cry:

I wanted to send the links to some friends.

[mzmolly]

44. Bravo to both women

for doing an outstanding job laying out questions and answers. I disagree with sending more troops, but I now respect the decision and am hopeful that it's the right one.