The more tuned out the people are, the less questions will be asked about why the hell we're there. We aren't there to fight any terrorists. There's always a money motive.

Especially now that the government so wants to pretend that some sort of "victory" has been achieved, and the facts render that idea ridiculous.

I'd love to see that.

The USA should and must celebrate any POLITICAL gains made by the Afghans, but they continue to be regressing.

Obama is no fool, he is very careful about what he says, that's part of how he's driving the Pubbies nuts. . Rmoney would make such an assertion, perhaps, he'd say anything.

Nothing whatever has been "accomplished" in Afghanistan, and a great deal of harm has been done.

A real victory is not now, and never was possible.

Do you believe we are going to defeat "Terror" by killing more people in Afg/Pak?




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

There's no point discussing Afghanistan.

No, I don't believe in the terms of the discussion set by Bush. Yes, I do think the NATO mission of supporting an Afghan government has some validity ESPECIALLY SINCE THE AFGHANS WANTED US TO STAY.

However, they have made no progress politically, so enough is enough.

Meet Hamid Karzai
or as President Obama calls him, "The Government of Afghanistan".

He was appointed by Bush the Lesser to run Afghanistan.
He is one of the most despicable criminals in The World,
But NOW we like him so much
that our children are fighting and dying in the deserts of Afghanistan to keep him in power.

We already Got Osama.
It is LONG past time to Pack Up and Leave.


Please define for us specifically what our Military Objective is for staying.
What must our Military achieve before we can leave?

There is absolutely no "news" from Afghanistan other than daily death tolls.

No progress has been made by the Afghan government to move towards a unity government with the Taliban. Until then, there will be no news other than NATO countries increasingly divesting from that mission.

And you cannot expect NATO/USA to withdraw when there's no political progress being made, because we'd effectively be responsible for the bloodbath to follow. It would be a bloodbath with no end in sight... involving pakistan and iran as competing neighbors.

Nobody likes what has happened there, but we're there. No military solution is available, either.

Instead of pretending it isn't even happening, and that its been going on longer than any American war.

And by "happening," i mean some type of either progress or significant slip backwards.

And if the answer to that question today is, more of the same, the withdrawal should start tonight.

BTW, daily needless death is news.

They were very clear about no "military" solution being available.

Likewise, Obama was closing shop in Iraq and probably couldn't afford to literally put ALL those guys and girls immediately out of work. Sometimes it's that simple.

But the bottom line is that no political progress is being made on the Afghan's end.

was buying into McCrystal's build-up. A more experienced Obama now has the good sense to be ending this war. In general, I see Obama as being much more capable now of standing up to the Pentagon. He rejected the Pentagon advice to just bomb OBL's compound which would have cost many innocent bystanders their lives. He had the courage to risk his Presidency to do it the right way. He is improving and I have way more faith in him as CIC than in his ridiculous opponent.

1. Closing shop in Iraq meant literally putting lots of men and women out of work during an economic crisis. Cynical truth.

2. The Afghan government actually wanted us there as the police, unlike in Iraq. A sudden break of that arrangement by Obama would have caused incredible uncertainty around the world about our alliances, commitments, etc.

3. Since we were unfortunately commited to being there for a while, Obama made the right choice to try to "surge" the situation to see if new progress might come about on the political front.

4. Obama ALSO immediately reached out to the Taliban to talk about bringing them into the Afghan government. This was the part that the media and the public don't appreciate. Bush refused to do that even though they admitted there wasn't a military solution to the situation. Obama and Clinton focused on the POLITICAL side, in spite of the military surge.

Unfortunately, no real political gains have been made on the Afghan end.

I disagree to some extent. I do agree that a sudden, precipitous withdrawal in 2009 would have been a bad idea (though not so much because it would have caused uncertainty about our commitments). It is the surge that was a bad idea because even McCrystal and company recognized that, to have a chance at success, it would require a huge commitment of resources for years, and that was not in the cards. As for reaching out to the Taliban, that was worth trying, but not likely to have substantially positive results. Most Afghans hate the Taliban (contrary to popular opinion at DU) and certainly don't want to see them have any role in the Afghan government. It is a tragic situation there (I have Afghan friends who have emigrated because of the situtation) and I understand Obama's choice to invest in the surge even though I think it was a serious mistake.

We do owe them some support, but until the Afghans WANT a unified, peaceful nation then we're in the way.

And sadly, sometimes people have to bleed some more before they give up on fighting.

And there's no way around including the Taliban and pashtun warlords in the future government. That was the problem in the first place, trying to define a new society without them...

I guess those are in vogue only in times of war hysteria and jingoism...

During Vietnam and on through Desert Storm we had three very competitive networks and news divisions that built news divisions around the world. They had to fill 30 or 60 minutes per evening and international coverage was a centerpiece of their reporting. With the advent of the cable news era it's become bulk over quality...more chatter, less reporting. This also occured with the "deregulation" of the media that reduced the influence of news on the networks becoming an "unneccessary expense" and, just like newspapers, we've seen a big reduction in coverage other than "interpreting" and "analyizing" events.

War coverage is always difficult as people do tune out on the horrors when its presented day in and day out. Afghanistan is even tougher due to it being half way around the world and with a primitive infrastructure. Sending reporters to that war zone is very risky and the costs can far outweigh the benefits when a reporter ends up coming home in a pine box. It's a risk fewer and fewer news organizations are willing to take. Thus much of the coverage from Afghanistan comes from those brave souls who free lance and have limited outlets for their work to be seen. In short...there's no profit in covering this war and thus why its faded to the back burner. It's not only a forgotten war, it's a war people want to forget.

or reported on after Iraq started.

We the hell are we still there -- bin Laden is dead. Maybe the Presidential debates should be held on Bush's aircraft carrier and they can just change the banner to read "Mission Not Accomplished?"

The Leadership of both Parties are in agreement.
The ONLY "Media" willing to discuss the ongoing disaster in the Middle East are the
"Far Left Fringe" Outlets.


If it isn't on TV, then it isn't real.
Most Americans choose to live in the state of Blissful Ignorance.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

No seriously the Economy affects americans in tangible ways. Unless you are a service member (1% if the population actively serves at any one time), or a relative (that raises this to 5%)...

This was done by design by the way...

We lost (again). Get out. Get over it.