The numbers appear to be leaked by The White House, 30,000 more troops for Afghanistan.
Some of the buzz from the MSM is that Pres. Obama will present this as a part of a plan for winning in Afghanistan and that we should be out by the end of his first term.
I’ve previously expressed my criticism of the whole concept of “winning” in Afghanistan, namely that it will always be nebulous as there is no concrete finish line. The Taliban can have a resurgence if beaten down as they have shown and the corrupt, dictatorial “democratic” government is a ticking time bomb.
However, in politics, one can either lock their eyes on the context of the current moment in time…or analyze it to determine the subtext, the big scheme and unspoken strategy lying beneath it of which this may only be a part.
This is all hypothetical but let’s consider Pres. Obama’s current position, the political landmines on Afghanistan and actually taking constuctive steps there in an attempt to explore whether this may in fact be a prelude to withdrawal.
In an environment where winning a Nobel Prize and spending a weekend with his family are considered by his foes as outrageous affronts to the American People, how would “We’re pulling out of Afghanistan!” play?
The Repubs would cry, “He made us lose!”, “We’re in danger of being attacked now!”, “He’s too weak on defense to protect us!”, etc. Once Teabaggers removed the obstructions in their mouths, they would scream, “Traitor!”, “Surrendererer!”, “He let the terarists win!”, “If we’re attacked now, it’s his fault!”
And the Dem Party would be painted as weak on defense, palling around with “terarists”, leaving our country open to attack, etc.
So, my proposition is that in order to pull out, Pres. Obama may feel that we first have to go in. There are goals and tactical missions that could be accomplished in a brief period to help the Afghan people and root out any remaining Al Qaeda. We could leave Afghanistan on a strong note of accomplishments which will be good for our relationship with that nation, other nations and of course among the teabag-less majority here at home.
If this was his goal, to settle things down there as the first step of a pull out, he could hardly make that known to anyone. Though he did start whispering something like that in my ear at that WH dinner I crashed but I was elbowed out of the way by this bleached blond who had a copy of “Arianna Huffington’s Guide to Getting Undeserved Attention” in her purse.
No, I am not happy that the 30,000 are being sent even if it is towards the goal of pulling out. Things don’t always go as planned and those troops and more could get bogged down, killed and wounded there for many years to come.
But I do hold out the slim possibility that there could be a silver lining to this unpleasant dark cloud. At least we know, if Bush was still in office or if McCain was, this wouldn’t even have a remote chance of happening.
Only time will tell…
Email This Post
Print This Post
boomer1949
boomer Time Out for O/T
KQuark
Chernynkaya
nellie
javaz
It is pure bs to employ armies against a concept. We don’t have money for HC yet find billions for such excursions. Media is complicit in misleading American public especially the faux news. IMO, all political talk shows should have a ticker stating that these are just opinions and not news.
I am sick of lies and people who believe them.
Can somebody ask Leiberman where is the money for wars coming from?
Report this comment
For all his dumbness Bush managed to convince us:
1. We were attacked (attacked by which country?)
2. We have an unseen enemy which can only be taken out by military
I say, very smart move by those who benefits from these wars..
Nowhere in the history armies have been employed to go after a concept and ideology.
Report this comment
If anyone is interested Senate hearings are on with Gen. McChrystal And Amb. Eikenberry. C-Span -3
Report this comment
No offense Senator Sessions, but are you just ignorant or are you an idiot?
He thinks we should arm militias in Afghanistan. Is that not where the taliban got their start when the US armed them against the Soviets?
Report this comment
I’m sure he wouldn’t take offense.
Report this comment
What would he say, “well, I’m not a complete idiot. I can tie my own shoes!
Report this comment
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/07/women-afghanistan/
“The already dire plight of women in Afghanistan risks deteriorating further as the US and its allies take steps to turn around the war against the Taliban, according to a report by Human Rights Watch today.”
Report this comment
J’avaz, I looked at that and some of the report. Here is what has me confused: If we just leave how badly will the women be treated by the Taliban? Did they not go though that scene already?
Report this comment
Mo c’mon man. 5,000,000 man insurgency? If NATO was fighting 5,000,000 insurgents the war would be over because we got routed.
I understand and agree with parts of the moral arguments that people like Q are making. It’s not worth the blood and treasure that we are spending. I think the situation in Afghanistan can be contained long term but I don’t pretend to be certain about this.
Report this comment
This article by Huff’s Bob Cesco made me realize once again why the reluctance of the military in Pakistan to deal with the Taliban and the remnants of Al Qaida on their northern borders, makes it imperative to see the war in Afghanistan to a more solid conclusion.
This brings me back to the question I always ask when I hear about another terrorist attack in Pakistan, just how safe are their nukes and do we really want to leave Afghanistan unstable enough to allow the continued infiltration of the Taliban? iI so, why start this war in the first place, what do we say to the families of the fallen soldiers, what do we say to the families of innocent Afghans who had no choice in what has happened in their lawless country during the last 8 years?
It could have been over but for George twiddling his thumbs, while Cheney and Rumy planned to steal Iraq’s oil to profit from their rich friends.
I think that your President faced one of the hardest decisions he will ever have to make, although we are all tired of the fighting, can we not at least give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that after the 18 months, he will start to pull the troops out, must we all be armchair generals, could we do better?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/obamas-unavoidable-cure-f_b_377482.html
Report this comment
Hi, Kalima.
I think, that a lot of what is going on (wrong) in Pakistan is another case of the “Egg versus Chicken”-anathema:
How much of the violence in Pakistan is, in fact, going on,
a. because US-troops are chasing Taliban-troops over the Afghan-Pak border into Pakistan? Or
b. because CIA-Predator and -Reaper-drones kill droves of civillians in Pakistan, causing a huge uproar and insurgence of the victims’ next-of-kin against the America-friendly Pak-government, who allows the CIA to “do their job” unimpeded? Or
c. people, who are chased our of their homes by Pakistani troops, who are “hunting Taliban” in Pakistan on American orders – which the pakistani polulation knows perfectly well?
I say, that the USA are much more than tne benign neighbors and passive bystanders to the Pakistani nightmare.
I think, that Amerika is, in fact, once more actively stoking the fire and stirring the pot in Pakistan, to achieve their own political goal, which is:
Destabilize Pakistan so much, that the USA will finally be justified to go in and take Pak’s nukes away, because no muslim country will ever be allowed to have the bomb.
Cause – effect, Kalima.
Report this comment
Let me ask you this Mo, when since it’s conception, has Pakistan ever been peaceful?
I look at it like this this, Pakistan is a poor country, constantly in political turmoil, a corrupt and greedy government being financed by aid to stop the terrorists, which they are reluctant to do, and they have nukes.
Report this comment
Kalima, you might want to rent “Earth,” the 1998 film directed and written by Deepa Mehta (starring Shabana Azmi and Nandita Das). It is from her “Elements” trilogy and is about India and Pakistan. It offers a lot of food for thought.
Report this comment
Thanks nellie, it might be hard to track down here so I’ll see if I can order it on the net. I’ve made a note of the title and have seen quite a few documentaries over the decades about the formation of Pakistan, unfortunately this conflict has never ended nor will it end in my lifetime.
Report this comment
Do you have something like Netflix in Japan?
Report this comment
Yes but foreign films are limited to what has already been shown in the theaters or tv here, the choices are very limited, we wait for things to show on cable here.
Report this comment
Is Pakistan even really a country?
Or Afghanistan?
Report this comment
I would imagine the people who still live there and those who died there, think and thought so.
Report this comment
Cesca is one of the few bloggers I still respect at HP.
Reading around the web, I have come to believe that HP is woefully low on facts and insufferably overstocked on opinions…. uninformed opinions.
I’ve spent the day listening to the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing, and it’s been very informative. I have to wonder if anyone on the staff at HP listened to this. Or read Juan Cole’s article. Or have sifted through any of the hundred of articles from the Defense or the State Depts about the region.
On a side note… Evan Bayh is actually sounding pretty good today.
Report this comment
Hi nellie. The pros and cons of the information out there on the internet are that people tend to search for opinions very similar to their own and this in turn helps them to assert that they must be correct.
The lack of media coverage of your President’s speech was mind boggling to me and of course the RW mumblings even more so.
I find that Americans are quite impatient with many things, yet they demand a good outcome, sometimes without the extra effort, things go stale and rot. No one in their right mind likes wars, but we are there and should try our best to fix what the Bush administration left up in the air. I think that Obama deserves this chance too, he has already been trying to clean up the stinky droppings Bush left behind, this is one of them.
Report this comment
Hey Kalima! It’s always good to see Japan’s morning arrive in the States.
You’ve hit on a big problem. People searching for opinions instead of facts. I wonder if many Americans can tell the difference any more.
An informed opinion is one backed up by facts. But so often we read opinions backed up by feelings, speculation, and pop psychology. A lot of that going on re the Afghanistan situation.
Report this comment
Oh what a dark and miserable Tokyo morning it is too.
Hubby is at the Narita airport waiting to fly to Barcelona through Frankfurt. Guess what, it’s raining in Germany and in Spain too.
The looking for opinions similar to our own seems to be the norm with some people and yet they will be the first to call out the Woo Woo’s for doing the same.
Report this comment
j’avaz, Chris Mathews just made an apology after getting “a ton of emails”. I will try to get the transcript link for you.
Report this comment
What did Matthews do to gain this bit of attention?
Report this comment
K7,
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/02/matthews-deeply-apologize/
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/02/matthews-enemy-camp/
Report this comment
I haven’t watched him in such a long time. Whenever I hear anything about the show, it’s something similar to this gaffe.
Can I get a show, somebody? I can chew on my toes, too!
Report this comment
Thanks!
His show comes on here every Saturday on NBC, but he has a cable show and is on every night, correct?
Sheesh, we stopped watching him a long time ago and that was only once a week.
I couldn’t imagine seeing that guy every night.
Although, I have seen him on Craig Ferguson – we tape him and Letterman – and he’s very funny on that show, but then he’s not talking politics.
Report this comment
Mo I think there are plenty of valid arguments why we should get out of Afghanistan sooner than later. I just don’t accept the Afghanistan is Vietnam argument whether you call it light or not. Actually I think it’s a great disservice to the almost 60,000 Americans and over 2,000,000 Vietnamese who died to always bring that conflict up with any US engagement. Nothing was like Vietnam in recent American history and we are still living with the scars of that terrible war. Peace alone should be strong enough justification for people who want to get out of Afghanistan without adding hyperbole to the argument for an emotional response. I just think that short term peace will make us feel better at first but we saw what short term peace got us after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan.
Report this comment
On Vietnamization (taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamization#Vietnamization.2C_1969.E2.80.931975 )
Vietnamization, 1969–1975
Richard Nixon had campaigned in the 1968 presidential election under the slogan that he would end the war in Vietnam and bring “peace with honor.” However, there was no plan to do this, and the American commitment continued for another five years. The goal of the American military effort was to buy time, gradually building up the strength of the South Vietnamese armed forces, and re-equipping it with modern weapons so that they could defend their nation on their own. This policy became the cornerstone of the so-called Nixon Doctrine. As applied to Vietnam, it was labeled Vietnamization.
Soon after Tet, General Westmoreland was promoted to Army Chief of Staff and he was replaced by his deputy, General Creighton W. Abrams. Because of the change in American strategy posed by Vietnamization, Abrams pursued a very different approach. The U.S. was gradually withdrawing from the conflict, and Abrams favored smaller-scale operations aimed at PAVN/NLF logistics, more openness with the media, less indiscriminate use of American firepower, elimination of the body count as the key indicator of battlefield success, and more meaningful cooperation with South Vietnamese forces.
Vietnamization of the war, however, created a dilemma for US forces: The strategy asked US troops to fight in order to buy time for the ARVN to improve its ability to hold its own against Communist forces. Morale in the US ranks rapidly declined during 1969-1972, as evidenced by declining discipline, worsening drug use among soldiers, and increased “fraggings” of US officers by disgruntled troops.
Sounds eerily familiar. Doesn’t it?
Report this comment
So Mo what superpower is funding the Taliban like the Soviets did in Vietnam?
What major city in Afghanistan does NATO not control?
Where are the 2 million NVA troops since the Taliban has 20,000 troops?
What impenetrable cities do the Taliban control where NATO jets cannot even think to fly over?
This is pure opinion and has nothing to do with a sober comparison of both conflicts. It’s fearmongering to boot.
Like I said their are some similarities but many more differences. You can post 100 opinion pieces but it does not change the basic facts.
Report this comment
M dear friend KQuark –
thank you for giving me a taste of my own medicine: I notice, that you are recycling a Huffy post, just like I did myself down below…
But let’s check your points one by one:
KQuark: So Mo what superpower is funding the Taliban like the Soviets did in Vietnam?
Mo: Taliban and Afghan insurgents don’t need no bigger funding, than they already have. A Kalashnikov and 100 rounds of ammo cost 300 Dollar appprox. on any farmers’ market In the ME. The Afghan Opium Trade last year raised 6 billion Dollar. That’s 20 million Kalashnikovs with 100 rounds of ammo (in case one needed that many AK’s).
KQuark: What major city in Afghanistan does NATO not control?
Mo: NATO controls all 6 big cities in Afghanistan – while the Taliban and Afghan Insurgents control all the rest of the country. The USA made the same mistake, to hold the cities for the whole country, back in Vietnam, already. Outcome known.
KQuark: Where are the 2 million NVA troops since the Taliban has 20,000 troops?
20,000 Taliban – and add another 5 million furious and determined Afghan Insurgents. Distinguishing between Taliban and insurgents is completely acadamical. The bullet fired by a Kalashnikov doesn’t mind one bit, if it was a Taliban or an Insurgent, who pulled the trigger.
KQuark: What impenetrable cities do the Taliban control where NATO jets cannot even think to fly over?
NATO owns the sky, but the insurgents own the ground. NATO owns the cities, but the Insurgents own the countryside. NATO owns the day, but the insurgents own the night. NATO owns the supplylines and the trucks laden with goods and fuel – but the insurgents own the IED’s to blow them to smithereens at will. Have you ever seen “Lawrence of Arabia”?
KQuark: This is pure opinion and has nothing to do with a sober comparison of both conflicts. It’s fearmongering to boot.
Mo: No, it is stating the obvious versus clinging to nicely worded propaganda.
KQuark: Like I said their are some similarities but many more differences. You can post 100 opinion pieces but it does not change the basic facts.
Mo: This goes both ways, my old friend (And I mean it!), this goes both ways.
Report this comment
I don’t have a clue what huffy post you are talking about but it’s pretty ironic that most of your posts are other’s words.
I know what’s funding the Taliban and obviously you think the Afghans warlords who are mostly growing the crop for their own benefit are very generous.
Sorry 5 million insurgents is just factually wrong.
I cling to no such propaganda like comparing two wars that are vastly different. I’m sober to all the difficult realities in Afghanistan. Containment is the only “victory” that will be achieved in Afghanistan and an all out withdrawal will not contain the situation.
Report this comment
Nicely put!
Evil use of the word “clinging”, you naughty gorilla!!
Report this comment
I am BAAAAAAD…
No, I am not. I only do not fall for a spin versus weighing the facts myself.
Report this comment
It would admittedly be very difficult to spin a classically well-engineered 300 lb. German gorilla and make him fall.
Report this comment
Since when can “stout” not be well engineered?
Report this comment
Well-engineered? I am more of what the folks call “stout”, Questinia.
To give you an idea: I would only ride a Shire horse with a good conscience – if you know, what I mean…
Report this comment
KQ, I second that.
Report this comment
No.
NATO is in this time, see post below.
Report this comment
Thank you. No, it does not sound familiar. Not even similar to Iraq.
Report this comment
Hi, javaz!
Reminding ourselves that we are all standing on the same side, you still don’t have to believe me.
Instead, believe him:
Vietnam-lite is unveiled
By Pepe Escobar
President Obama took pains in his strategy speech on Tuesday to distance his new Afghan policy from the traumas of the Vietnam War, but there are signs that his “war of necessity” is inviting history to repeat itself. Costing trillions of dollars, the surge will see occupation troops next year reach the peak level of the Soviet occupation. Still, it’s great news for the Pentagon and its agenda of full spectrum dominance.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KL03Df04.html
Report this comment
So what is it with this author Mo. Is it like Vietnam or the Soviet occupation. Sounds like the author can’t decide.
BTW You do know the Soviets fought 140,000 Mujahideen at the height of their occupation while we are fighting 20,000 Taliban?
Those facts are just inconvenient little truths.
Report this comment
See below, my friend, see below.
Report this comment
The tree of Mogs is a tree of mine
Report this comment
And my oreo is your oreo, but I get the half with the most frosting!
Report this comment
Mi arboreo es su arboreo!
Report this comment
How do you know the USSR would have prevailed over 20,000 Taliban?
Report this comment
The USSR would have never prevailed because their mission was to occupy the country indefinitely. Also the US and Pakistan were funding and training the Afghans.
Report this comment
President Obama made a promise last night on drawing down the troop levels within 18 months.
I will wait and see if he does that.
I support my president, even though I do not agree with everything he does, but I support him.
Report this comment
There’s a difference between support and enabling.
President Obama should be given enough license to exert his plans and judgments.
I also agree with patience. But one must be at the ready if he fails.
His speech last night told me nothing except giving me a broader outline that Bush, if he wasn’t so verbally challenged may have given.
The whole “we need to be there as prophlaxis against something that may happen” is too far removed from what is impacting people now.
People are losing time, years in their lives while this country is spending billions in insurance against a potential threat.
It would be like buying insurance for a patient who may have already died.
And you can’t say he’s doing it for their “children”: A popular red herring, imo. Children need secure and stable parents now. Otherwise they’ll just grow up to become another crop of nervous wrecks that are easily manipulated.
Report this comment
President Obama now owns the war in Afghanistan.
Report this comment
I think he certainly owns the outcome.
Report this comment
I am having a difficult time taking you comment seriously, since you started out with this morning with something like “I don’t trust Obama anymore.” Then you followed up with stating that you are a cynic. So when I read your comments I think” ok, a bomb thrower”
Report this comment
How does that make me a cynic? That was my “opening large”. He’s disappointing me and I’m developing another potential view of him.
I think it’s important to keep eyes open and update files as they need to be, as long as it’s tempered with faith and optimism, and not as a result of paranoia or impulsivity.
Report this comment
Ques, No your opening remark was:I don’t believe Obama anymore. I find him glib and unctuous
Report this comment
bitohistory: my opening words were
Unless Obama has some kind of genius “timing” thing going on again, this girl has become a bit cyniQal.
You should have seen “bit”, shouldn’t you have?
I am not a cynic.
But I’ll admit I opened large.
Report this comment
What I heard from the president last night was that the mission is three-fold — to train the Afghani military force to handle the Taliban, to defuse the threat of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and to defuse the threat of Al Qaeda in Pakistan. It’s hard for me to see these goals in the context of “something that may happen” since we have already lived through 911.
Report this comment
I don’t believe there is any conflation. If I’m not confused, I know the president is not. And certainly the defense dept and the state dept are not confused.
Report this comment
In my mind there is conflation between the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
All those points of the mission are wonderful. It may erase some discontentment.
But Al Qaeda was a rogue group of losers who couldn’t play in the larger society to begin with. It has nothing to do with education. Top AlQaeda officials were surgeons!
These are people who don’t need many to do what they did on 9/11.
I see it as possibly a perfume, to disguise the stench of what we’ve already let out. Glade.
I’m all for hope. I’ll be the first one to tilt more in Obama’s favor when he has convinced me he is beyond the flourish.
He needed to be more specific.
Too few specifics lead to too many areas of slipperiness.
Report this comment
In my mind there is conflation between the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
All those points of the mission are wonderful. It may erase some discontment.
But Al Qaeda was a rogue group of losers who couldn’t play in the larger society to begin with. It has nothing to do with education. Top AlQaeda officials were surgeons!
These are people who don’t need many to do what they did on 9/11.
I see it as possibly a perfume, to disguise the stench of what we’ve already let out. Glade.
I’m all for hope. I’ll be the first one to tilt more in Obama’s favor when he has convinced me he is beyond the flourish.
He needed to be more specific.
Too few specifics lead to too many areas of slipperiness.
Report this comment
I have a problem that perhaps you, my friends can help me with solving :Who angers you the most with their asinine comments:
Karl Rove, Bill Oh’Really, John McCain or Jon Kyl?
Report this comment
Listening to the Senate Armed Services hearing, it’s Lindsay Graham.
I wish one single Republican Senator could focus on the issues rather than on needling and finding petty ways to criticize a president whose decision they actually support. Although I have to hand it to Ms. Clinton — she has given them back more than double in needling about the incompetence of the previous administration.
Report this comment
Sec. Clinton is sharp. Graham is not up to walking her dog, and cleaning up after it
Report this comment
Love her as SOS. She mopped the floor with those senators.
Report this comment
Last night on PBS ‘Nightly Business Report’ a financial adviser gave an opinion piece and it was excellent.
http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/nbr_transcripts_091201/
“MAYA MACGUINEAS, DIR., FISCAL POLICY PROGRAM: As a political independent, I look at the disastrous state of affairs in governing and I think, it’s not all that surprising. Republicans are looking out for Republicans; Democrats are looking out for Democrats and who is looking out for the best interests of the country? Hmm. Having two opposing teams in sports, that makes sense. But setting up a government with two opposing teams, each of whom is trying to take the other down, does that really lead to the best outcomes for the country? I present the nation’s mess of a budget as exhibit A. Politicians are trying to outbid each other with spending programs and tax cuts. Neither party is willing to come clean with voters about the changes that will have to be made for fear of giving the other party the political advantage. What we need is collaboration. What we get is demagoguery and attack ads. In the words of Charlie Brown, good grief. Imagine if corporations set up their boards with a two-team structure. They’d then have the dual goals of protecting the company’s bottom line and making the other guys look bad — not exactly a recipe for corporate success. Parties made more sense when they helped voters navigate a host of complicated issues, but there is much more access to information these days and the need for these political clubs has been greatly diminished. We have a lot of hard policy challenges ahead of us, from dealing with the debt to reforming taxes, to rethinking our overstretched entitlement programs. The only way we are going to get things done is if politicians are willing to put country before party. That is the kind of change we need right now in Washington. I’m Maya MacGuineas.”
Report this comment
Perhaps only one party would be better?
Report this comment
Fabulous link, javaz. I’ve seldom heard it put this well.
A good argument for IRV — and giving third and fourth parties a chance. Politics should not be played the same way as a football game, but that’s what we get right now.
Report this comment
And this is where we converge. Obama, should have been a third party candidate, if one was viable.
This country has two parents who need marital counseling. And the only third party is the children, to whom they say… “hush you’re only kids”.
Meanwhile the kids are being neglected.
Report this comment
Excellent post.
Report this comment
None, as I expect them to be asses and make asinine comments.
Chris Matthews angers me for his tingling leg and enemy camp crap.
j’avaz
(hee-hee)
Report this comment