I guess staying in Afghanistan is some sort of compromise.

Obama would have never won the election by saying he wants to withdraw from all the wars. Remember how they were saying "Hussein Osama wants to make friends with the terrorists"? Now he has to at least appear like he tried in Afghanistan before he pulls out. Its sad because lives are at stake, but I think if he withdrew from Afghanistan now, the Republican opposition and possibly alot of Democrats would rip him apart. We would perhaps wind up with another Republican president really soon. Doesn't mean the peace movement shouldn't put pressure on him though. I think any policy that is unpopular among the establishment is easier to sell when it appears like you are giving in to public pressure.

And insuring that the Taliban doesn't take over again after we're gone.

So that is what he has a mandate for.

:shrug: I thought it was to get Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

How much do you think we should spend (blood & treasure) to salvage this country that has defied the efforts of other Empires for 2000 years?

What would have to happen before you would be willing to admit that maybe we can't bomb Afghanistan into the 21st century?


"insuring (sic) that the Taliban doesn't take over again after we're gone."
Your goal sounds laudable, but again how far are you willing to go?

"The Taliban" is an indigenous confederation of religious extremists that was spawned by the Tribal Warlord culture of Afghanistan and reactionary Muslim elements. Direct opposition only swells their ranks and justifies their militancy.
Will a European (white)/ Christian foreign country ever be able to successfully force our cultural values on a Muslim/Afghani region?

I would prefer to devote our efforts at suppressing religious extremism and salvaging OUR democracy before tackling something that has destroyed numerous empires over the last 2000 years.
We simply can not do it ALL.

If you or Obama could point out a specific military objective and an Exit Strategy, I would be willing to look at the plan, but Nation Building and fighting a religion is hopeless.

No Military Objective + No Exit Strategy = Quagmire

The British empire was destroyed by WW-II, not Afghanistan.

The Soviet empire was destroyed by the failure of communism to provide all the gadgets and gizmos the people saw coming out of the West. Their tiny little war in Afghanistan, and the belicosity of Ronald Reagan, actually helped the communists stay in power a decade longer as the Russian people "rallied 'round the flag". The notion that the tiny little war in Afghanistan destroyed the USSR is pure, Rightist bullshit to build up the Reagan myth.

Alexander did just fine there. The Persians had no problems. The Arabs conquered it and imposed their religion and culture on it. The Mongols waltzed right on through it and introduced a great deal of urban reform.

Seriously. What Empire "died" in Afghanistan?


And an even bigger question, what makes you think that the US plans to establish a permanent presence in Afghanistan? Yes, the neo-cons and neo-libs did want to do that in Iraq. But the logistics of Afghanistan, a land-locked country in central Asia, makes the idea of doing so there preposterous.

are you really that naive?

You should have a look at the major speech he made on the subject last July.

He very plainly outlined his goals for Iraq, Afghanistan, and made it clear that he'd go after Osama and friends hiding over the Pakistani border.

He's not making it "appear" like anything, and he's not "giving in" to anything, either--these are his plans. He's doing this, precisely what he said he would do last July.

He's going to put a shitload of money and troops into the effort, too.

He needed to convince American Empire dead-enders like yourself and The Wraith that he wasn't gonna be soft on the scary scary terra. He had to convince a brainwashed nationalistic populace that he shares their delusions. Sounds like he convinced you.

argument more viable, or are you just bereft of the ability to interact with others like an ordinary human?

'American Empire dead enders like yourself?' WTF? From which foul orafice did you pull that?

There's no "opinion" involved, here. Obama laid out his plans last July, in painful detail, before he was even elected. Yet you seem to want to blame ME for that. How absurd.

I suggest you do a little introspection, and perhaps read what people actually write before you shoot off your keyboard. Come back when you can interact like an adult.

Bush's Two Follies, despite the rhetoric to the contrary.

It's impossible to discuss issues here without some people thinking that one is advocating a position when all that one is doing is simply reciting facts from recent current events that are self-evident to anyone who picks up a paper and reads on occasion.

People who are surprised at Obama's Afghan policy, or who are trying to spin it as an "Oh, he doesn't mean it" excercise, fail to understand that yes, he does mean it, and General Dynamics, the people who make weapons, not toasters, have been funding him for years. This policy isn't some odd accident, and he wasn't bullied by powerful forces into "going along." He's a grown man, this is HIS policy--not someone else's. Like it or not, we're in Afghanistan at LEAST for the length of Obama's term, how ever long that will be. And that's not MY fault. I'm not the President, and I didn't make the call.

It gets tiresome to be called silly, childish names, it doesn't change the situation, and it doesn't advance any causes save the cause of a few immature keyboard warriors who get all tough and bossy hiding behind a computer, trying to tout themselves as "better" because they don't want to discuss an issue, they simply want to shout down others who do want to discuss it.

Snarking at me doesn't change a fucking thing.

with such certainty what Obama really means? At least I preface my opinion with "I think." You declare yours - and yes it is just your opinion - in BOLD with absolute certainty and continue to refer to it as "the facts." "The fact" is that none of know what is really in Obama's head, or whether he really means everything he does in Afghanistan or elsewhere. Maybe it's the tone of condescension that accompanies your declarations of absolute certainty that I find so annoying and which leads me to make the posts you find so bothersome.

Are you suggesting that Obama was a big fat liar? That he went on national television and gave a carefully crafted, prepared speech and ....what? He was making that shit up?

You must not have listened to the speech. If you had, you wouldn't be accusing me of "claiming to know" like you are. In that speech, he said he was going to carefully draw down in Iraq as the situation warranted, dramatically INCREASE troops in Afghanistan, take the fight to to the Taleban in Afghanistan AND Pakistan, and use diplomacy and other "hearts and minds" measures to win over the population. That's a pretty straightforward plan to me. I didn't notice anyone stage right with a gun to his head when he made that speech, either.

What, you think YOU can read his mind? That he didn't mean that? He only repeated it three or four times in that one speech--and then, over and over again on the stump. But you're telling me that I shouldn't believe my own lying ears, and that you know, better than I do after hearing the man speak, that he "doesn't really mean it." That Obama was saying "Let's send ten thousand troops to the Stan, let's send money and helos and drones and all sorts of aid, let's bomb terrorist hideouts in Pakistan if the Pakistani government doesn't go in there and drag those people out when we ask nicely...naaah, I am KEEEEEDING!!!! I kid, you silly, I kid!!!"

Tell me, if Obama said "My helicopter is more than adequate" (which he did, recently) and I said "Obama says his helicopter is more than adequate" would you then accuse me of inventing the meaning of Obama's words, and claim that I'm putting words in his mouth about his helicopter? That's what you are doing by snarking at me for restating what Obama plainly, clearly, without ambiguity, said. You're either telling me I didn't hear him say these things, which I did, or you're infantalizing the President of the United States, making him a little liar who doesn't tell the truth, or who is pushed to say things by "powerful forces" when he really doesn't want to do that.

Obama's the President. He's large, he's in charge. When he says something, he means it. Let's have another look at his speech:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/politics/15text-obama.html?pagewanted=print


So....he was "just foolin'" when he made all those specific, detailed commitments of troops, money, materials, equipment and nonmilitary aid? I don't think so. But then, I listened when he spoke. I heard the words that came out of his mouth, and I believed he meant what he said.

I know what Obama said.

The whole point of this OP was to suggest that maybe he DIDN'T actually believe everything he said about Afghanistan.

Believe it or not politicians bullshit us sometimes. Even Obama. If you swallow everything ANY politician says with such absolute certainty then maybe you need have your critical thinking drive re-booted.

Because he just rolls that way....he's a big fat liar who makes up concise, precise, detailed, long-range plans involving three foreign nations, gives in-depth speeches about them, but of course, he KEEEEEEEEEDS!! Just keeeeeeding! Big joke, ha ha!!

Yes, politicians bullshit all the time--tell me something I don't know. However, they don't bullshit with precise troop augmentation figures, dollar amounts, outright promises of specific material, infrastructure aid, training, other assistance and cash to foreign nations, and they don't make these "bullshit" pledges on national television, having purchased airtime as a candidate to so do, and then repeat said concise, specific pledges on the stump at every opportunity.

And then, after being elected President, repeat them again to Congress.

So take that "critical thinking" snark and put that away as well. There's a big difference between "Unnnnh...we gots ta make the pie higher" and what Obama said in that July speech. If you remain unable to see the profoundly obvious difference between "campaign promises" and the specific outlines that Obama made in that POLICY speech, perhaps you're the one who needs to get to work on that re-booting of your "critical thinking drive."

Clearly he does.

The question is whether he really believes in his heart this strategy direction is the most sound. Or whether he is following this course as part of a grand compromise with the Wall Street / Weapons Guild that actually runs our Country, and who's suicidal nationalist "exceptionalism" bullshit most Americans (even many of you here) have swallowed whole.

Obama is smart enough to to know you can't be President in America without bowing to the nasty arrogant streak in the American electorate that has been deliberately fostered by the propaganda of our war hungry bi-partisan leadership our entire lifetimes.

He had good friends in college who were Pakistani, and he visited Pakistan and stayed with one friend as a college student. Some of his classmates from the region are still close friends, all are supporters (see excerpts below). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/obamas-early-years-recall_n_101984.html

He also sees Afghanistan as a step away from Pakistan which is a key player in the whole nuclear proliferation issue, that he's determined to get his arms around--I think that's a key though understated (because it's a tough nut to crack and a high bar to vault) goal of his Presidency.

He's not an intemperate man--he has thought this through, and he does "mean it." He's not compromising, he's not being insincere, and he's not "pandering" in his actions in any way. He realizes that the way to a breakthrough in the world's current nuclear paradigm is through Pakistan--among other places. And you can't "handle" Pakistan without handling Afghanistan first. The "problems" that beset those two nations take turns hopping the border whenever things get too tough in one location.

Obama has shown us that he can think way ahead; more than most people credited him, certainly. He has a vision of the southwest asian region that is actually very hopeful as well as development- and peace-oriented; his Afghanistan strategy is just a small part of reaching that overall goal.

and a genuine interest in the region doesn't necessarily lead one to the conclusion that more violence is the answer to the problems we face there. In fact, for many people such ties have led to the opposite conclusions.

I also agree with you and Obama that the issues of Pakistan and Afghanistan are closely intertwined and that the issue of nuclear proliferation is paramount. However, none of that leads me to believe we need more US initiated violence.

It seems to me that the sort of ham-handed "more troops" and "more bombs" approach we have pursued, and which Obama is clearly continuing, is not worthy of the complexity of the situation.

Afghan military personnel out in front as an ANTIDOTE to violence, abuse of women, the influence of non-Afghan Taleban terrorists and malcontents who stroll in to this southwest asian society from the Arab world like they own the place, and a host of other ills.

He's not looking for fights. He's looking for an end to violence.

He intends to put these troops at FOBs backing up the Afghans who will do the heavy lifting and day-to-day policing. He then intends to embark upon an infrastructure-improving, school and hospital and road building, educating the population, hearts-n-minds effort. The purpose of the "more troops" is to enable that other stuff to happen. The Afghan military is hardly a crack unit, it needs lots of training and plus-up. To do that right will take time.

Afghanistan is like the wild west, there's no law west of the Pecos--you can get shot going from city to village--not because of your ideology, but because the bastard who shoots you wants to rob your ass. There's got to be some law and order beyond Kabul in order to bring the countryside into the nineteenth century (which would be a huge leap).

He's saving the bombs for the other side of the border, in the areas of Pakistan that their government doesn't control, either (which is why they can't enforce behavior there)--unless AQ decides to come over the line again.

If he abandons Afghanistan, he abandons it to the Osama crowd. And they won't sit on their hands--they'll use it as a launching pad. He needs to deny them that haven, and at the same time, help the people there who have been on the shit end of the stick for decades now.

He's thought this through, and he's already gotten it down to the fine points with DOD. It's why he kept Gates on, to some extent. DOD has wanted to do this for a long time, only George was spending too much in Iraq. They couldn't do both.

I want this to work, but my money says it goes no better than Viet Nam.

peace and security to a population that could use a little of both.

It's always been a problem on this board, but it's gotten truly ugly lately. Dizzy with success, far too many of the "Obama is always right about everything" crowd accuses all comers of being haters, losers, conservatives and all other sorts of defectives. Far too many of those disgruntled or in disagreement with the Administration's moves do the same.

Policy should be argued on policy, and if someone posts something that isn't an overt insult to those who disagree, the debate should be kept on that plane. Others are basically intolerant and need to savage and destroy the individual who disagrees in an effort to humiliate the person into full flight, or get others to gang up on him/her. Much of this is ego need to "win" and be the cool person everyone cheers on, and much of it is ham-fisted destruction of contrary viewpoints to secure the forum for agreement. That's not victory of ideas, it's merely successful subjugation.

We have one very conspicuous pro-Obama poster on this board who NEVER posts anything but very short posts ridiculing and vilifying the personality, intelligence or morals of anyone who makes a stand against any of Obama's actions, and this person has rows of hearts and dreamy fans posting congratulations for such clever bon-mots, which are never funny or clever. This helps nothing, and shows the pathetic nature of those whose personal egos are so violently in need of reveling in the clannish ostracism and embarrassment of others.

While I'm on a rant, I hope I never see another post where someone delights in someone "ripping someone a new asshole", a truly stupid, ugly little gleeful blurt from vengeful jellyfish. Likewise, I hope the physical appearance insults go away, but humanity is what it is.

I've said my piece repeatedly on Afghanistan, but in a nutshell, I think it's Obama needing to compensate and prove that he's not a liberal marshmallow, and I think it's feeble though enthusiastic flag-waving to git the varmints whut done 9-11, even though this will do precisely NOTHING for the latter and will spark serious civil war in Pakistan, regional strife, financial disaster and more than enough death, dismemberment and heartache to go around. It's foolish, there's not even the vaguest depiction of what "victory" will look like, and it won't work. Lyndon Johnson wasn't stupid, either, but look what he did.

Thanks for your post; I hope this gets to be more of the norm.

If he were just "phoning it in" and "pretending to be sincere" I really do not believe he'd have been quite so specific in terms of the amount of money he is willing to spend, numbers of troops he wants to deploy, types of weaponry he is willing to use, nor would he use the word DECADE (as in "...triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade...").

I really think he MEANS it. I don't think he's playing the 'not a liberal marshmallow' card--a ten year commitment to Pakistan suggests, to me, that he's not farting around. He knows we need a foothold somewhere near Iran, to counter the influence of Pooty Poot's puppet, and we still have a 'terrist' to catch. So he's going to make it happen from Afghanistan.

Now, just because I argue from the point that this is what I believe he intends to do, based on his own words, that does not mean that I am a mindless cheerleader for his game plan, which, as you quite aptly noted, is fraught with variables that can turn what sounds like a good idea on paper into a quagmire in a hurry, if one is not careful. It just means that I listened to the man when he spoke, and I had no reason to think, because he was so very specific, that he was faking it when he laid out this plan.

It's obvious to me that Obama was talking to someone within DOD--either "the generals" (and quite likely Petraeus) and very possibly some country experts from the defense graduate school system before this speech got crafted--this IS the DOD game plan, with just a few tweaks.

It is exhausting at times to try to discuss these issues here. There are too many Jump-On-Ya-Jerks who, if you dare to point out something as self-evident as what someone actually said, they'll accuse you of lying, making shit up, and then call you an asshole when you provide the chapter and verse to back up your initial assertion. It's mind numbing and tiresome. Add to that, the disruptors who simply trot on in to crap on a discussion by chiming in how much they HATE the topic, and then pm all their pals to pile on smartly to try to shut it down with "You must be a rightwing expletive" type comments and snark back and forth about "some people" and their political proclivities. Then, posters are compelled to defend themselves, the moderators get involved and delete entire subthreads (oftentimes that include interesting posts with valid material in them) and then, after a mighty though ultimately pointless struggle, the whole thing gets locked. Then it's lather, rinse, repeat.

It's a real shame, too. This is one of the most user-friendly forums on the net--an idiot could use it (many do, unfortunately--heh heh) and there are a ton of interesting topics to choose from on any given day. It's just unfortunate that people who don't like a topic can't simply say so, without accusing others of holding political viewpoints they don't necessarily hold, or calling them liars or other insults simply because they don't like what is said.

all to secure a pipeline or corporate interests at the cost of lives and billions of dollars is utter insanity. I don't care who it is that supports this action , they are insane.

There is no way to win in Afghanistan , no one ever has , this is a given and you are not going to covert them to a democracy.

I can't see any hope or change in this. None!

I still feel the MIC and the lobbyists and corporations have all the control and the president is nothing more than a figure head.

Just go back to the promise made that was what the Dems ran on in 2006 which was to get out of Iraq yet we are still there and all the protesters have gone home and this issue is not even in the news anymore as if it just somehow is over.

People can hope and fool themselves all they want but these wars are money makers and will not end anytime soon even if there was an exit stratagy.

NO specific military objective + NO Exit Strategy = Quagmire

Bring our troops HOME today.
Divert the War Funding to Single Payer HealthCare for Americans.

I doubt will be there in four years. Or at least eight.

it will be obamas vietnam if he doesnt gtf out of there.

before we admit it isn't working, that it will very likely never work, and that our resources and money are better removed and brought home?

I can try to understand his goals from his speech (thanks for the link, MADem!), and I can also see that there might be some motivation to prove to those on the right that he isn't just going to close down all the wars, but those two points aside, I'd still like to know at what point he will decide that the war road is no longer worth pursuing, and that leaving Afghanistan is in our best interests.

It matches his pledge to Pakistan back in July, to provide them with ten years of aid and get them off the nuclear hobby horse.

That's just my guess, but it makes sense from a regional view. Of course, he's only in the game for eight of those years, but I'm thinking he's not inclined to give up on this easily. The situation will have to go very far south, very fast, in LBJ fashion, with "unacceptable" casualties, for him to contemplate a course correction and pack us up and get the hell out of there.

I think he's likely got more information now about that situation - which could easily get worse. We've got to carefully navigate our relationships in Pakistan and Afghanistan, or it could be very dangerous - especially since Pakistan has nukes.

These were the people giving shelter and aid to Al Qaeda. There are still many, many dangerous situations all over the area, and simply leaving would only strengthen people who are still eager to harm us.

There was a good op-ed piece in our paper this morning by Trudy Rubin on the subject - she spoke with an expert on insurgencies and I found it pretty eye-opening.

Here's a link:
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-rubin0225.artfeb25,0,4131306.story

For me, I'm still more than willing to trust Obama to make smart decisions. So far, he's been far more prescient than I could be!