Just because Obama promised to do something in his campaign doesn't make it right.

I've noticed around here that whenever the subject of Obama's expansion of the Afghan war comes up, a contingent of posters flies in and start repetitively posting something to the effect that Obama promised to do this is in his campaign as if this very promise makes everything all right.

It doesn't, it doesn't even come close. Just because Obama promised to expand the war in Afghanistan during his campaign does not make that expansion all right. Yes, the vast majority of people here voted for Obama, however many of us did so in spite of his promise to expand the Afghan war. After all, look at the alternatives.

Yet just because Obama promised a wider Afghan war, and just because we voted for Obama it still doesn't make this war right. It doesn't mean that we gave up our right to criticize Obama on the war, it doesn't mean that we have to support Obama as he expands the war. All that our vote for Obama means is that we thought that he was a better answer than McCain. Much like people thought that LBJ was a better alternative to Goldwater back in '64.

Many, if not most people around here want the US to withdraw from both Iraq and Afghanistan. We have every right to push that anti-war agenda. We also have every right to criticize Obama for his actions concerning these wars. This is, after all, a democracy where we the people have the right to speak our minds and agitate for change, which it looks like the anti-war groups are going to continue to do. However now it seems that there are those partisan hacks who will damn the anti-war groups just because we criticize Obama. Sad, really, since rather than mindlessly criticizing these same people should be listening to us. Do they really think that their demonization of the anti-war contingent is going to make us more likely to vote for Obama in 2012? Do they realize just how much they are starting to sound like their opposite numbers in the Republican party on this issue? Are we really going to once again see the spectacle of Democrats calling other Democrats out as unAmerican or worse all over the issue of the Afghan war? Shades of LBJ.

So, if you are one of those folks who are against the Afghan war and Obama's expansion of it, please, continue to make yourself heard. It is one of the great traditions, indeed our right, to criticize a president, even one that we voted for, in order to get him to change his mind. If you are one of those who are for a wider Afghan war, fine. You have that right to your opinion. But please, when you go to defend that opinion use some other tactic than simply stating that this was what Obama promised. Morally, going to war for no other reason than a campaign promise is nothing less than abhorrent. We would have condemned Bush supporters for such lousy reasoning, we would have condemned McCain supporters for such lousy reasoning, so you really shouldn't try to defend these current actions by Obama with such lousy reasoning. Rather defend this Afghan war based solely on the basis of the war itself. And if you can't do that, then perhaps you need to reconsider if you do indeed truly support this Afghan war, despite what Obama promised.

Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires.

All we have to do is look at Vietnam to see what sort of mess we're getting into. Even Petraues is saying that "victory" isn't the word we'll ever be able to use in Afghanistan.

We will never bring a stable democracy to the country. Never. The only thing that will come out of Afghanistan is more death and more hatred being sown for the West.

It's a crap-shoot, at the very best. We need to get out NOW and our President needs to understand this.

Afghanland is just the icing at this point.

He was wrong on Afghanistan. I knew that, and I campaigned and voted for him, proudly.

He is still wrong on Afghanistan. Unfortunately, he is resigned to let that war grind on through his entire first term.

The people who will come along and say, "He is doing what he promised" or "You must have not paid attention during the campaign" or "I'm not outraged, because I listened" Are minimizing the death of innocent people done in our name. They are deflecting away from the issue.

We should all stand against unnecessary wars. We would be louder and stronger together.

However we cranked them back up once we saw Obama continuing and widening the Afghan war. We've been at it for seven years now, we can do it for another four or more. Hell, I'm watching kids grow up and everything while out on the protest line.

I said essentially the same thing to several posters using that "reasoning", and I noted I never get replies. But I have not posted it anywhere near as well as you have put it here.

:)

I've just gotten sick of seeing that "reasoning" used time and again like it is some sort of talisman that makes the war OK.

its never a good thing, its never the best thing and its never the lesser of two evils.
Even when it is supposedly used to stop another evil force, the collateral damage is never good, because innocent civilians did not offer themselves up as cannon fodder, they just get caught between opposing forces.

is it inevitable? sure, sometimes, but I would posit that it is not as inevitable as leaders wish us to believe.

delete

I dont understand why people don't think we should get OBL. He's a criminal, and a symbolic figurehead that mobilizes the right to paralyze the country. If the Afghan surge is directed at getting OBL and cleaning up any mess afterwards then I fully support that strategy. I fear many people in this country dont realize that a progressive agenda is being held back by Al Qaeda's tactics, and regardless of wether or not getting OBL will solve religious terrorism completly, we should do this in order to move forward.

Getting this man, or even small group of men, calls for an a response more akin to a true police action(not the kind of PA we had in Vietnam). Send in a small contingent of soldiers who are specially trained, grab him and his cohorts, and get out.

Instead, what we're doing now, and what Obama promises to expand, is the policy of using a hammer to swat a bee. It is ineffective and the only thing that we're really achieving is to turn more and more of the people of south central Asia against us.

Francis Fukiyama, a former neo-con turned voracious critic made an excellent point, that this War on Terror is really a War of Ideas, and when we bring the military to an idea fight, we're already outgunned. For instance, a few months back there was a major earthquake on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. Hundreds were killed or wounded, thousands were left without shelter facing a harsh winter. All of this was within range of US forces, close enough that we could have either trucked in or airdropped humanitarian aid. Yet we didn't do that, instead a terrorist group did, rolling convoys into the area, dispensing tents, heaters, food, etc. And they got all the credit, all the appreciation. We lost that battle, just like we've been losing battles since we've been there.

One would think that we would learn from history, after all, despite all the violence, the Vietnam war was truly a war of ideas, and we got our ass kicked on that one too. We should learn from that bit of our history and start bringing ideas to this fight instead of bullets. Sure, send in a small force to get OBL, but also start showing the Afghani people, the Pakistani people that we really are the good guy, and that what we offer is so much better than the Taliban. Otherwise this war will wind up like the Vietnam war, with millions of lives and billions of dollars wasted, and defeat for the US.

I don't think sending troops is as indicative of agressive military force as we are all acting it is.

Troops can be used in various ways, and in an insecure situation they are necessary to do all the things you mention in your last two paragraphs.

And I'm sorry, but sending in military troops is indicative of aggressive military force for a very good reason. Most people or nations don't send in the military unless they want to start killing people. Especially when you send the military into a foreign country.

NGO's won't be able to rebuild Afghanistan...I dont think that is possible given intl economics, and the situation over there.

I am generally with you on this issue so I cant manage a really cogent reply. Personally, I think we need a definitive alive or dead on OBL, and if possible prevent Afghanistan from just reverting back to Taliban controlled territory -- especially if they are stronger in Pakistan than before.

For instance, a few months back there was a large earthquake on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. We had the chance to go in with humanitarian supplies for these people who were starving, freezing and dying. Instead though, we did nothing and allowed a local terrorist group roll the convey of humanitarian relief in. We lost that battle in this War of Ideas. We really can't afford to lose many more.

Thus, rather than going in with military power, we need to go in with humanitarian power. This War of Ideas, and how to fight it, was recognized fifty years ago(reference the book The Ugly American). Yet we have failed to use that knowledge, instead time and again, in Vietnam and elsewhere, we have brought the military to a war of ideas, and lost every time.

As far as a dead or alive on OBL, that would be nice. If he is alive, it shouldn't be that hard to find him, however if he is dead, it's going to be hell finding him. Either way though, using massive military force to accomplish this task isn't the way to go about it. Rather we need to use our superior tech and a small, specially trained force. Anything else is just bull in a china shop.

traditionally getting bad guys has been much easier using intelligence resources. After eight years of death and destruction it should be very clear that is not the intention of the US.

Possibilities

1) OBL is dead
~Great let's get out

2) He's alive because we want him to be
~A 'contained' AQaeda is safer than a dead AQ with new splinter groups we cannot trace

3) He's alive because we cant find him
~Unlikely, but if that is the case we should get him no matter what in order to quell domestic fear and stop the lionizing of OBL in the small proportions of people that look up to him.

The US needs a boogie man at all times to continue feeding the MIC. They are not even trying to get him. It is all bullshit. Remember Smedley Butler's words "War is a Racket"!

The MIC got it's real start during WWII, and a big boost under both Truman and Eisenhower. I think Ike's parting speech was that of a man who regretted his actions in enabling the MIC. Sadly, not enough people paid attention.

I definitely think the Bushes would let OBL exist for political reasons, but I think Obama realizes how counter productive that is. We don't have him on record for that, but I'm going to give him some time.

good bumper sticker I saw on my walk yesterday.....

"if voting made a difference it would be illegal"

Even if he were alive though, you don't go to war and kill thousands of people just capture one person. That is insanity. It is even more insane when this person we are going to war over is probably either dead or in a completely country. Almost no one thinks he is in Afghanistan any more, a lot of people say he is in Pakistan but I don't know if they actually have any evidence for that claim as it seems that if they knew where he was they would be moving in on him and don't know where he is then why would they be so convinced he is in Pakistan? The point is though that going to war over a guy who is either dead or missing is extremely stupid, and it is wrong. People die in war, innocent people and we can not be killing innocents over a person that they have nothing to do with.

I dont think more troops equal more killing. If they have a decent strategy and framework they can do more building and basic security.

The Afghans need training, stability, energy, and whatever we can do for them in order to keep that country stable. This is george bush's mess we have to clean up, and I dont want to keep this political issue on the table anymore as a way for Republicans to scare the shit out of the country in order to keep their petty politics intact...

And if we keep this war going longer and increase the troop levels it is almost certain that thousands more will be killed as well. Yes George Bush started this mess, but that doesn't mean we should continue it. There is no exit strategy for either Iraq or Afghanistan, people just say we can't abandon these places until they are stable. Well guess what? We caused this instability and to think we can stabilize a place that is unstable because we are there by staying longer is absurd.

The big Al Q training camps are already gone. What's left is the ideology behind them, and you can't bomb an ideology out of existence.

You defeat an ideology by giving people an alternative, not by randomly killing villagers with missiles fired from predator drones.

War just breeds more militants. Expanding our military presence in Afghanistan is unbelievably counter-productive.

sw

You can put a small dent in the ideology by capturing the leader and subjecting him to normal criminal trials.

There are also political benefits domestically if we can get the issue of OBL off the table definitively instead of letting it persist in ghost form the way it does now.

Afghanistan off the radar altogether.

sw

OBL is a political football in the country, i'd like him and AQ to be off the table alltogether.

Show me were he admitted it or took credit for it or that he for that matter is even still alive. He is used as the source of scare tactics used by the BCF and people still buy into this. Bhutto said in an interview that he was killed. And they continued to drag out tapes of OBL for years yet no one has ever found him.

True or False -- If Obama pulled otu of Afghnistan right now and said there is no OBL to worry about...Do you think given the rabid and insane right wing in this country, he would be able to get a second term? I wish I could definitively say yes but I cant.

He has this term to prove himself and adding more military buildup in Afghanistan which most of the people who voted him in are against.

How about finding OBL first if he still is alive then well see where it all stands which should have been done in the first place but hell no we wanted that caspian sea pipe line.

So we go to war in order to make it more likely for a politician to get a second term?

Are we not looking at this in an odd way? I thought we elected politicians in order to have a chance to advance the cause. If we tailor the cause, and what we say and do to the ultimate goal of getting certain people elected, then what is the point?

You are all acting like all troops are going to do is run around and kill people, when the reality is that troops can provide services, infrastructure project help, and other things other than killing kids...AND I want them there to finish off AQ.

Also, what about the principal question about Barack being able to win last year if he ran on a get out of Afghanistan and Iraq concurrently. Obama, unlike Fuhrer Bush, has clear political goals in Afghanistan, he is not sending troops like bush did to iraq where his strategy pre-surge was just to point a flag and kill whenever whereever...

What exactly is the purpose of an army? All of that 'nation-building', 'hearts and mind' bullshit is ancillary PR to the mission.

"Finish off AQ', ho, ho, ho, every day we occupy an Islamic country we recruit for AQ.

Sorry, threadbare excuses for continuing imperialism.

giving obama the benefit of the doubt...he will not be able to hide his long term plans for that long...

What does "giving Obama the benefit of the doubt" mean? Say nothing for some period of time?

"Barack being able to win last year if he ran on a..."

That is moral depravity, and in some ways worse than what Bush supporters were saying. As deluded and wrong as they were, at least they thought that it was the right thing to do.

Can you imagine the reaction here if Republicans said "it helped us win elections" as a justification for going to war?

Supporting that which we imagine will best facilitate electoral wins, rather than basing our positions on principles and ideals, is morally wrong.

over to a third party country. It is about OIL and Poppies.

It's great to see you!!!! :pals: :loveya:

BushCo only used the "war" strategy because it gave him war powers that a criminal investigation would not.

not an army that is big enough to see them coming a mile away. We are literally destroying whole countries to capture one man and his gang of killers. In the process we are doing his recruiting for him and making new enemies out of the citizens of those countries and others who are their friends. I think we are losing more than we are gaining here.

Obama said that bush took his eye off the ball in going to Iraq and not pursuing OBL in Afghanistan, so, to the extent that this 'surge' is for that purpose, I agree with it. It would be nice to see Obama bring OBL to justice. bush used the specter of an 'at large' OBL to scare the American people and to manipulate us and the Congress. I find myself hoping that Obama is outsmarting us all and augmenting the force there for that very purpose, bringing bin laden to justice finally, and then get the hell out of there as soon as possible. Thank you for the thoughtful post, Madhound. I agree with what you said about the campaign promises. We have to hold Obama's feet to the fire just as much as bush's, especially if this escalation is for the wrong reasons. The past administration is a good example of why people need to question not just the party across the aisle but their own party too. Many repugnants are out there now saying bush over spent and didn't do alot of things as they would do them, where were they then..?

In addition to your statements I'd like to also point out that it's insane to spend billions on wars when the country is in economic crisis.

None of those folks who have made that statement want to come into this thread. Hmmm.

If they post in this thread they will have to directly confront your argument and they don't want to do that. I have been around here long enough to know that what they will do is start a new thread saying something along the lines of "You all knew what Obama's policies were when you voted for him so stop complaining!" Most of the people who make these weak arguments do not like to defend them so they go start a new thread in the hopes that we won't waste our time on them, because they know that if they were to post in this thread they would get challenged.

and the OP is right that its a stupid rationalization. I still really have no idea what should be done about Afghanistan. I think we shouldn't be there, but thanks to Bush we are there. Now what? I don't see any easy answers, but I have no idea what we are trying to achieve by staying and it sounds like McKieran and Petraeus have no idea, either.

Staying or leaving is a recipe for disaster for the Afghan people. Civil strife leading up to the elections or civil strife as we try to secure things leading up to the elections. I think it would be immoral to abandon them without some form of reliable security and government. The problem is, what does providing security and a means to achieving a stable government look like? War?

Still, making a campaign promise to do something wrong shouldn't get Obama off the hook. I'm not saying that this applies here, just that its a stupid rationalization.

And reflects favorably on his credibility.

We will get out of this war, too. It just takes more thana month, especially with Bushco's Iraq boondoggle still going on. The body politic is not ready to give up the fight that seems more directly against the 911 evildoer; Obama knows that.

The Afghan war should never have started either, but those of us who think that way are outside the main bulk of the population/voters. I didn't even like in it Oct. 2001, which shows what an extremist I am. We should always have aimed to go right after bin Laden and his closest allies, not just indiscrimately bombed a country, blaming it for 911 and "harboring" Al Qaeda when the people being bombed didn't really have control over that.

Sorry but consistency is most definitely not a good thing when you are taking a position that is completely wrong. And as far as the popularity of the war goes, we should never wage a war based on some numbers in an opinion poll that is just pure insanity. People die in wars, and just because the majority people approve of the war does not mean that people should continue to die.

We have to live with the neighbors we have. At least a slight majority of them no longer believe in indiscriminate bombing of Muslims as a way to avenge 911.

"Those who are right could not be elected?"

We have to go to war in order for "our people" to be elected? What difference does it make then whether or not our people get elected?

And consistently killing innocents, and as with all of the US Wars of Ideas in the past fifty years, we'll lose this one.

The body politic may not be ready to give up the fight, but the American people are. Is this a democracy or what? LBJ failed to listen to the people, and look at what happened to him.

Continuing this war is simply going to create more and more people who hate the US to the point where they're ready to join up with the Taliban or whoever gives them the best shot at hurting the US.

We need to stop bringing a military force to a War of Ideas.

We're not living in a pacifist country yet. Abandoning the search for bin Laden would not go over well. We ourselves spent a lot of time dissing Chimpy for not getting OBL.

military actions in Afghanistan. Thanks for challenging me and making me change my mind!

And willing to change your mind when evidence indicates you should.

Peace:hi:

I wish you people would point out just ONCE who denied you had that right.

So, question for you, are you going to continue this war when it is still dragging out in 2012? When we've sacrificed even more treasure and lives on the altar of a wrong-headed war? When we've killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians instead of just hundreds?

This is a War of Ideas, and sadly the US has brought a military to this War of Ideas, much like we did in Vietnam. And despite our overwhelming military superiority, if we continue down this path of blind militancy, we will lose in Afghanistan, just like we lost in Vietnam. Are you ready for that?

Oh, by the by, I never once stated that somebody denied me the right to criticize Obama's actions. Nope, I'm just pointing out their faulty logic in stating that Obama campaigned on staying in Afghanistan. Hell, LBJ campaigned on staying in Vietnam, didn't do him much good in the end, do you think it will do Obama much good in the end. Perhaps Obama should reconsider his actions, if for no other reason than his own political future.

Do we??

is his order to send 17,000 new troops in, and then a day later turns around and says he's going to cut funding to Afghanistan to help manage the deficit.

I remember a popular meme here some years ago was that the Bush Administration was sending the troops to Iraq without the proper equipment. Yet now President Obama is promising to do the same thing. You can't boost our presence in the country by 50% then cut funding, and not expect it to damage our ability to operate. The same thing will happen if he starts carving into the budget. Our troops won't get the equipment they need to fight the war. It takes money more then anything else to win a war. It doesn't matter how many troops you throw at it, if you don't have the money to back them up, then your just throwing those troops in futily.

This war is unwinnable, period. We don't even know what our objective is in Afghanistan and to spend billions of dollars on a war with no end in sight is insanity. It is time to get out of Afghanistan now and quit wasting our money on killing people in an unwinnable war.

We should be protesting LOUDLY against this war, period.

sw

:applause:

It is so absurd that we are wasting lives and money on this war of terror. If they are really trying to catch bin laden(I can't believe anyone really believes that Bush BS) haven't they ever heard of bounty hunters? We are not threatened by anyone in the middle east. With all of the money we spend on our military, we actually had so much protection in place that there is no way the hijackers could have pulled that off. They were helped by insiders in this country. We are in no way threatened now either. And how many people died on 9/11? How many have we killed since then? How many people have died in this country because of poverty, lack of health care etc. It is so stupid and makes me so angry :grr: I can barely write about it without losing it.

Maybe now is the time for big protests again. Bush felt perfectly okay ignoring us, but maybe Obama wouldn't be able to look the other way.

the President said it when he was campaigning. And if posters here are arguing that something is wrong with a policy, that's fine. I can't speak for everybody, but I get terribly irked when some posters express outrage and claim that the President is 'betraying' them on issues where his actions are following a course he laid out in the campaign.

The most frequent examples of this pertain to the increased number of troops in Afghanistan and the "middle class tax cut" in the Recovery Act.

Here's an example from today <http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5105573>

This has been going on for awhile as a way of trying to stifle criticism of Obama.

during the campaign". It's annoying as hell.

any administration policy. I question the credibility of detractors that claim they have somehow been betrayed or express surprise when the President does something he has repeatedly said he was going to do.

I will never call out anybody that says "I disagree with this." I will never call out anybody that says "the President is wrong about this."

No specific military objective + No Exit Strategy = Quagmire

There is no justification for a military presence in Afghanistan or Iraq.

International Law Enforcement is the appropriate vehicle to deal with the handful of criminals responsible for 9-11.

Oddly enough, International Law Enforcement may also be the best way to deal with the handful of criminals who started these two wars.

V. 4 vendetta? no? kewl. welllll???

You may have it if you like.
It is especially appropriate for this thread.
Hopefully, more will wake up and realize that this is NOT about Democrat vs Republican, but about REAL issues and a lack of representation in Washington no matter which Party is in power.

I've been around DU to see every sort of permutation of specious argument(and tried out a few of them myself). However it is disappointing to see people trying to stifle debate and criticism with this tactic, that's all.

I heard an interview by Terry Gross on Fresh Air with Sarah Chayse, who has been working with a cooperative in Afghanistan for years. She maintains that initially the Afghani people were solidly behind the U.S. because they were sick and tired of the Taliban and the rule of the warlords before them.

Unfortunately, the U.S. installed Karzai and he promptly re-instituted the warlord/tribal chieftan form of feudalism that exists now in Afghanistan. According to Chayse the resurgence by the Taliban is due to the unbridled cruelty and thievery of the warlords COUPLED WITH the lack of leadership from the Karzai government. Sadly the U.S. is furiously trying to keep Karzai from being ousted.

My point is that we are there in numbers and we are sending more troops in, so why not try to get this thing right. If there is some way to set up a system that allows the people to govern themselves without the warlords or the Taliban taking over, I'm all for it.

Yes, I see the analogy with Vietnam being valid, but we fucked that up because we didn't have the gumption to see that the people wanted to have self-government there too.

and was not, because the Repugnican monkeys had an idea of lying to fight Iraq instead for profit motives.

Or more likely power position? Its a prime strategic global position to be occupied...

What ever happened to his line about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? Sure, we'll get a few of those crazy Talibans who are doing bad things in their country and a few despicable terrorists, too, but this ill-advised approach is guaranteed to result in a large number of dead innocents and create far more anti-Americans and terrorists for the next religious/military war. War in Afghanistan cannot achieve our goals, which are legitimate, I admit. But, we are not fighting a country; we are fighting a segment of its population. This is a job for Intelligence, but apparently we don't have any anymore.

We shouldn't be like freepers worshipping Bush.

The "big tent" should include the ability to criticize our guy and even to point out that we wish things were different.

I thank god sometimes that someone like him is president and not those on your side.

Because he doesn't think being in Afghanistan is right, it means he's on another side than you?? lol

Yeah, "fer us or 'gainst us" Bush. You know, when you start to sound like those you hate, it's probably time to back away, sit out a spell and rethink what you're doing. I mean really now "your side"? Which side is that prey tell.

And while you may not like the current and historical reality of the matter, what Obama is doing in Afghanistan is not right. What he is doing is far from right. Even Petraeus has stated that there's not going to be a recognizable victory in Afghanistan.

Answer me this, how does having tens of thousands of troops actually enhance our mission there, which is to catch OBL? How does killing hundreds and thousands of innocents in the area actually make progress towards a society that doesn't want to destroy us? I really suggest that you go read Francis Fukiyama's book "American at the Crossroads". If a former neo-con can see the error of his ways, I'm sure that you can too.

We're in a War of Ideas friend, and sadly we've brought a military force to that battle, much like we did in Vietnam. Until we start bringing better ideas to these sorts of fights, were going to get our ass handed to us every time.

"Your side" geez dude, get a grip.

how democratic of you

A failed state in Afghanistan would create a nightmare.


While the real answers in Afghanistan are not military a shield is necessary to be able to introduce a working government and government services.


Beyond the terrorists we must quickly establish an alternative economy or Afghanistan will become a narco state and it will take decades to undue that influence.


Had we placed the apporpriate emphasis on Afghanistan in 2002 we would be talking about reducing our foot print now no sending more troops.

Unlike "Heartbroken" codepink.

Pissed off at the stupidity and waste of it all, sure, but not surprised.

wonderful

You have no idea whether it is an act on their part or not. Furthermore I find it despicable that you're blasting a group of people who've done probably a hundred times as much as you have to end these wars.

Besides, what's next, you're going to tell me that my being pissed at Obama for expanding the Afghan front is an "act"? Want to see me prove your happy ass is wrong?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x426733

A little story I found that raises new questions about old topics:

http://www.aprodex.com/pipeline-opens-new-front-in-afghan-war-1028-n.aspx

Hope some of the war protagonists and blanket-supporters-no-matter-what will check it out. And that the rest of us will keep speaking up.

K& R MadHound

This entire war is about control of pipelines and poppies. Period.

If you think anything else, you need some reschooling.

Will Obama do something about it? What happened to the last President who took on the CIA head-on?

If you feel the need to criticize, go ahead. Just realize others have the same rights you do, but perhaps have different views. Telling them to shut up is just as bad as the other way around imo.

to the rightness or wrongness of an expanded war in Afghanistan. They are more to those people who post that they are surprised, shocked and disappointed by Obama for expanding the Afghan War. I am opposed to the expansion but not at all surprised by it because I remember Obama said during the campaign it was what he was going to do.

muy bien.. !!

would choose a less aggressive course. The bottom line is this, leave and leave Bin Laden in place and alive and sooner or later, he or someone loosely related will strike. If this happens, all hope of positive change domestically is lost, as the administration in charge will be fatally wounded politically.

Alternately, if you beef the war up, and Bin Laden strikes, at least you are "doing all you can" to catch and kill him. This will go a long way toward avoiding the political wound. Now the best case scenario is of course removing Bin Laden, because once he is gone the troops can come home. At that point it will be "we did all we could", heck, we even killed the guy....

Bin Laden's head is the price of our leaving Afghanistan, and apparently the Afghans and Pakistani's know this and are beginning to cooperate toward that end. You do understand that the Afghan's and the Pakistani's are now in the room guiding the Predator strikes, right?

Obama did not go to war, he inherited one. He intends to end it and my guess is Bin Laden's corpse is the endpoint. I don't think he will waste any time getting it done either.

I find it very disturbing how many posters defend Obama for shit they would never agree with Bush on.

OBL's do we have to find and kill after the initial one? Thousands? I'm a pacifist. Out now!

The troops had OBL cornered and wounded in Tora Bora, and were asking for the OK to "take him out". They even heard him over intercepted radio messages saying he thought this was the end and was saying goodbye to all his followers.

Several hours of waiting later, OBL was able to escape. One of the soldiers that was there told all of this to "60 Minutes" in an interview early last year.

It is obvious that the Bush administration and the neocons wanted to keep him alive so they could have justification in continuing their misnamed "War on Terror".

After all, had OBL been captured or killed right there 8 years ago, the majority of the country would have considered the American response complete and not backed going into Iraq at all.

Bush and the neocons needed OBL and Al-Qaeda to continue functioning so he could expand America's presence in the Middle East. It was part of their neocon forced Democracy everywhere policy as written by Richard Perle.

I'm genuinely enthusiastic and supportive of the President, but I think this notion was wrong from the get-go, and I really pray he changes course. There have been all sorts of well-meaning arguments advanced here recently, some of them even superficially persuasive, as to why an escalation in Afghanistan is a good idea, but I'm not buying. We should never have advanced a military "solution" there in the first place. It's been a colossal waste of blood and money (dwarfed though it might be by the much more obscene debacle of our invasion and occupation of Iraq) and it's time to bring the troops home. Now.

..It's the screaming, crying whiney shit that gets on people's nerves. If the Obama critics post a reasonable criticism of Obama, most are ok, and will at most debate the criticism. If an Obama "critic" posts a whiney, abrasive, screaming, more of the same rant, most will wonder how long the critic has been off his meds. The problem is the reasonable critics see the reaction to the bitchers rants as the same as theirs. When you learn to separate the two, you'll see a more balanced debate on the issue, and perhaps ask the unstable to stop making reasonable criticism look so bad. Logic. Thanks.
quickesst

Wow, way to be condescending to an entire group of people who've probably fought harder than you and 90% of Bush's detractors to undo his damage. Not to mention that the vast majority of these people were quite active in putting Obama into power. But to you they're "screaming, crying, whiney.":puke:

So that's how you view Code Pink and the rest of the anti-war movement eh? Nice of you to so callously dismiss such critics, activists who were vital in swaying public opinion. Well perhaps you should just wear some ear plugs so we don't offend your precious little ears.

"screaming, crying whiney shit" my ass, why do I get the feeling that virtually any criticism of Obama gets thrown into that category by you.

And that was to let the whole area fall into a sink hole of destruction when they killed each other in a civil war.

Now that a real leader is upon us, we have a chance to prevent this sink hole of destruction.

Continuing to indiscriminately bomb the hell out of these people is not going to win a war. You don't bring a military to a War of Ideas, you've got to bring better ideas, better options to these people besides death and destruction.

I'm thinking Obama will be like Clinton, he'll help with some democratic causes while he helps the neo-cons continue on their path to a "New World Order".

and it sometimes sounds like freeperland on here when people defend sending OTHER peoples kids to a surge.
chickenhawks are everywhere.

:kick:

is to bring back the draft. Until then most Americans will be indifferent. It's criminal to keep sending the same suckers over and over, unless they are volunteering for additional tours. War is not going to solve the problem of terrorists. I thought Obama was smarter than he has shown, but with his appointments across the board, he has surrounded and isolated himself with the same old in-the-boxers. If I wanted fine tuning of the last eight years, I'd have voted for McSame. I thought I was voting for change.

Unlike Iraq, there was a real reason to invade Afghanistan that was recognized at the time: that the poverty, factional warfare and dominance of the radical and hostile Taliban was producing terrorists. The Pashtun tribesmen (sp) are very hostile to the West, and do believe that anyone not following their brand is Islam is no better than an animal. They actually believe that their successful fight against the Soviet Union brought it down, and that it proves that their brand of radicalism is blessed by Allah.

And unlike Iraq, I find it impossible to believe that things are worse now in Afghanistan than before the invasion. The country was a failed state and had already been in an unabated civil war for twelve years with no end in sight. I'm certain that there have been many small Darfurs in Afghanistan.

Besides, the world's indifference to failed states in general has been the sad-- and dangerous. We've got to bring them back to being functional. If we could have success in Afghanistan of all places it would really be important.