Support is at an all-time low for the war in Afghanistan, according to a new CNN-Opinion Research Corporation poll that came out this morning. Only 39% of Americans approve of the war now, compared with 53% who supported it in April.
http://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/
Do you support the Afghanistan war?
Quote from: buckethead on September 15, 2009, 04:21:43 PM
Do you support the Afghanistan war?
Do you support the Afghanistan war?
I think that the disgusting levels or corruption and a stolen election have soured a lot of people on our "nation building" efforts. It's been eight years! You cannot impose any form of democratic government on a country with tribal leaders. A group of warring tribes is NOT a country.
Quote from: Sportmotor on September 15, 2009, 04:36:11 PM
Quote from: buckethead on September 15, 2009, 04:21:43 PM
Do you support the Afghanistan war?
Do you support the Afghanistan war?
I support ending all wars we are currently perpetuating.
I'll holla when I see a better opportunity for war.
...did you just say holla?
He either meant "holler", a Southernism or "hola", Spanish for "hey there" from which the Southernism is derived.
I thought he was tryin to be gangsta
I was being coy. Sorry.
Coy? Coy! No need to be when what you said makes perfect sense. The wars we are fighting now aren't worth the expense in lives and treasure that they are costing. AND, there are sometimes wars that are worth fighting.
"The measure of a person's intelligence is how much they agree with you". So you are obviously very smart. ;D
Are you proposing we leave Afghanistan? What would happen then? What will happen to Pakistan? Perhaps the Taliban and al qaida will become peaceful poppy farmers and we can again forget all about Afghanistan... Yeah... Thats the ticket!
Clearly we are unwilling to defeat and comletely control Afghanistan. I would not be in favor of such an endeavor but it would be preferable to the half hearted approach that has bben taken from the onset.
One could list many situations that could be classified as unnacceptable, or even threatening to our national security, yet we do not invade.
The problem: Afghanistan did not attack us. Al Qaeda did, and while being harboured by the Taliban.
Shoud we desire retaliation, or neutralization of the Taliban/Al Qaeda alliance, it should be completed, and done via the cia with military support. Doing so carries consequences.
Innocent people will die. New hatred for the US will be spawned within a new and immerging population. We could easily make extremist enemies out of moderate potential allies.
If we can work around North Korea without needing to attack, why not Afghanistan.
I had as much bloodlust as anyone after 9/11, but have changed my opinion regarding the justifiability and usefulness of warring in Afghanistan. I was against the Iraq war from the onset, but I deferred to the President I voted for. Honoring that initial deference would be much easier had President Bush said "oops" concerning WMD rather that attempting to shift focus and make the war about "freedom for millions of Iraqis".
I have become quite wary of the CIA and calls for war.
I think those opposing our involvement in Afghanistan need to consider what will happen if we simply leave. The Taliban will likely return to power. They will likely take retribution on those who cooperated with the West. Can you say "Killing fields part two"? al qaida will be allowed to operate freely once again. Children... especially girls... who have actually begun getting an education will be denied access or forced into madrasas for radical jihad indoctrination. Womens meager rights will be reduced to nothing. Women actually ran for office in the past election... this will end.
In my view... leaving would be much worse than staying...
Quote from: buckethead on September 16, 2009, 09:16:31 AM
Clearly we are unwilling to defeat and comletely control Afghanistan. I would not be in favor of such an endeavor but it would be preferable to the half hearted approach that has bben taken from the onset.
One could list many situations that could be classified as unnacceptable, or even threatening to our national security, yet we do not invade.
The problem: Afghanistan did not attack us. Al Qaeda did, and while being harboured by the Taliban.
Shoud we desire retaliation, or neutralization of the Taliban/Al Qaeda alliance, it should be completed, and done via the cia with military support. Doing so carries consequences.
Innocent people will die. New hatred for the US will be spawned within a new and immerging population. We could easily make extremist enemies out of moderate potential allies.
If we can work around North Korea without needing to attack, why not Afghanistan.
I had as much bloodlust as anyone after 9/11, but have changed my opinion regarding the justifiability and usefulness of warring in Afghanistan. I was against the Iraq war from the onset, but I deferred to the President I voted for. Honoring that initial deference would be much easier had President Bush said "oops" concerning WMD rather that attempting to shift focus and make the war about "freedom for millions of Iraqis".
I have become quite wary of the CIA and calls for war.
Great explanation buckethead!
I read an article saying that we are going from a "baby-sitting" mission, to an "adoption"/nation-building mission. That's not what we went in there for.
I am sure then... that our leaving... will be better for everyone... right? Especially the women and children.
Your points are valid and weigh heavily, BT. In order to clean the mess up would require a huge intervention that would undoubtedly kill massive numbers of people, Taliban and civilians alike. The effort would border on genocide.
The Taliban is massive, and has grown rather than subsided despite our efforts to contain them. We would need to wipe them out, virtually to a man, in order to achieve such an objective. Can we really be the World Police? Judge, Jury and Executioner?
Can we justify the casualties that would inevitably accompany a comprehensive dessimation of the Taliban?
Do you actually believe we would do anything but attempt further containment rather than dessimation of the Taliban?
Earlier the term "half-hearted approach" was used in reference to the effort in Afghanistan. I do not disagree. Our approach has been piecemeal and ever changing. I suggest that proir to "declaring victory" and leaving we get behind a "full-hearted approach" and finish the job.
You mention that my "points are valid and weigh heavily"... Thank you. I would next ask again...
What would happen to Afghanistan if we leave prematurely?
What would happen to Pakistan?
What will happen to those in that country who tried to create a civilized nation? (Fayes favorite term)
If this goverments answers are...
I dont know... not our problem.
We will worry about that later...
Better get out now...
Then it is time to leave...
I simply don't know the answers, nor can I predict the future. It is not beyond possibility that a future strike would become necessary. I'm not fully convinced that we should never have gone to Afghanistan. It is very conveluded due to the fact that the Taliban is more of a militia than a government, and far from a nation.
There are atrocities going on all over the world, which we do not lend our military to halt.
The larger issue is a nuclear Pakistan, and what might happen should we withdraw. It's a big issue. I don't know how it would play out, whichever route we take.
I do believe we should refrain from wars unless attacked. Afghanistan did not attack us, but a militia, being harboured by another militia within their borders did: A quandry.
I did buy into the Bush doctrine of pre-emption for a time, but have certainly reconsidered. I'm not clear on what our military objectives in Afghanistan are other than the fact that it has been viewed as "The good war".
Of course we do not know the answers... but we can make informed and intelligent guesses. This was my small informed guess at what will happen.
QuoteThe Taliban will likely return to power. They will likely take retribution on those who cooperated with the West. Can you say "Killing fields part two"? al qaida will be allowed to operate freely once again. Children... especially girls... who have actually begun getting an education will be denied access or forced into madrasas for radical jihad indoctrination. Womens meager rights will be reduced to nothing. Women actually ran for office in the past election... this will end.
There is nothing here that is just a guess or not forseeable. It is very likely to happen based on al qaida and taliban statements, past and current actions.
I say again... are you OK for all these things to happen?
Pakistan. Nuclear armed Pakistan. Currently we pursue the Taliban and alqaida in a two front war. We pursue and attack from Afghanistan, Pakistan (in their own way) attack and pursue from Pakistan. Pakistan understands the Taliban threat and as long as the US is fully vested in the effort they are willing to allow us to use their bases, airspace, and allow special ops incursions into their territory.
If we leave Afghanistan... Pakistan will be in trouble... the Taliban will know it. al qaida will know it. Pakistan will know it. India will know it. Do you suppose India would allow a Taliban/al qaida Pakistan?
Woulda, shoulda, coulda... there are a ton of things I would have done differently in my life with the wisdom of time I now have.
I cannot change those things and must live in the here and now. I must make my decisions on life as it is now... not as it might have been.
Same with Afghanistan...
Stephen, I agree with you about Charlie Wilson. Its one of the reasons we are hated over there because we left too early the last time, leaving them vulnerable and therefore the Taliban takeover.
I think that may be what BT is hinting at. Do we really want to repeat those same mistakes again? I think not. That's one reason why the previous administration did not want to leave Iraq or Afghanistan before the governments and security forces stabilized. The current administration seems to feel the same way.
The media downplays a lot of the infrastructure/hospital/schools which have been rebuilt in Iraq. Nonetheless, I agree that we need to pursue these efforts in Afghanistan as well.
I think we are hated in Asia for rar more than leaving Afghani's high and dry. The CIA has been meddling in foriegn affairs for decades.
Our military/CIA presence since the end of WWII has made quite a few perpetual enemies.
Iran comes to mind. We used our military and the CIA to install the Shah. It was in response to Iran nationalizing their oil supply. The United States used coercive force abroad in an attempt to recover private assets in a foriegn nation. That is not the role of the US military nor the CIA. This policy has continued in different forms, in different nations since.
At some point, we must shift this policy. It may seem to have nothing to do with Afghanistan, but IMO it has everything to do with it. It is the big picture that is the problem, not a sum of the individual conflicts.
There are cultures all over the world that are abhorrent to any of us. Theocracies, kingdoms, sheikdoms, tribal rule, arbitrary justice, subjugation of women, kleptocracies, genocidal military juntas, nasty paranoid little dictators.
Unless we are going, again, to take up the "white man's burden" and colonize all these places and put in place by force our laws and traditions, then we (the Western democracies) are just going to have to let these places evolve on their own. What we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan looks a lot like such Neo-Colonialism to most of the people in the world.
On the other hand we DO have to keep such places from becoming platforms for attacks on our country. The Taliban government in Afghanistan gave safe haven and support to Osama ben Ladin. After 9/11 we were perfectly justified, when they refused to turn him over, to going in and kicking them out of power. Somalia had been smarter earlier on when they saw that he was drawing unwanted attention to them and kicked him out.
Having the CIA and/or special forces "meddle in foreign affairs" is far cheaper in lives and money than a lot of the alternatives. Communism didn't spread from Cuba to the rest of Latin America did it? It didn't spread from Vietnam to Thailand and Indonesia either.
We need to be far more careful about using our military power than we have been in the past and realize that "nation building" is not what military power is about (rather the reverse!). As horrible as the results are, we have to realize our limits and limit our goals in some of these places.
We toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan and destroyed their military capability. If we had left then, maybe they would have come back and required us to topple their government again or maybe a coalition of warlords would have come together and taken power. Distasteful to all of us, but just maybe the best that could be expected. Some things simply are not our responsibility.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 16, 2009, 09:00:14 AM
Are you proposing we leave Afghanistan? What would happen then? What will happen to Pakistan? Perhaps the Taliban and al qaida..
Pakistan is part of the problem. That is where a good portion of Taliban, al quaidaa, and the other tribal crazy terriorst arehidding out becuase we cant Offically go in and take them out
Oh and the way to truly win Afganaland and iSandbox(iraq) is with schools.
and us protecting the schools. The way to establish some lasting peace is with long term and full scale involvement in both country's to teach some of the hate out of the children and upcoming generations of sandpeople to give them other options rather then stapbombtoselfrunuptoyoupushBoom mentality that has bread into them.
At least that would be the best way to win that situation over there
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/09/17/united.states.missile.shield/index.html
QuoteU.S. scraps missile defense shield plans
Story Highlights
Senior U.S. administration official confirms U.S. has scrapped missile plan
Key elements were to have been located in Poland, Czech Republic
Decision likely to appease Russia which had fiercely opposed the plans
Plan proposed by Bush adminstration, has been under review by Obama
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Obama administration will scrap the controversial missile defense shield program in Eastern Europe, a senior administration official confirmed to CNN Thursday.
The comment followed similar statements from officials in Poland and the Czech Republic -- where key elements of the system were to be located -- but was the first confirmation from an American official.
Vice President Joe Biden earlier refused to confirm to CNN that the George W. Bush-era plan was being shelved.
But he did explain the logic of doing so, saying Iran -- a key concern for the United States -- was not a threat.
"I think we are fully capable and secure dealing with any present or future potential Iranian threat," he told CNN's Chris Lawrence in Baghdad, where he is on a brief trip.
"The whole purpose of this exercise we are undertaking is to diminish the prospect of the Iranians destabilizing that region in the world. I am less concerned -- much less concerned -- about the Iranian potential. They have no potential at this moment, they have no capacity to launch a missile at the United States of America," he said.
Biden said he is "deeply" involved in the review of the missile defense program. See how the system would work » | See a map of the proposed sites »
The Bush administration had cited the perceived nuclear threat from Iran as one of the key reasons it wanted to install the missile shield in eastern Europe.
The U.S. reversal is likely to please Russia, which had fiercely opposed the plans.
Is the U.S. right to scrap plans for a missile defense shield in Europe? Sound Off below
A U.S. delegation held high-level meetings Thursday in both Poland and the Czech Republic to discuss the missile defense system. While the outcome of the meetings wasn't clear, officials in both countries confirmed the system would be scrapped.
Czech Prime minister Jan Fischer said in a statement that U.S. President Barack Obama told him in a Wednesday phone call that the United States was shelving its plans. Fischer did not say what reason Obama gave him for reconsidering.
A spokeswoman at the Polish Ministry of Defense also said the program had been suspended.
"This is catastrophic for Poland," said the spokeswoman, who declined to be named in line with ministry policy.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. James E. Cartwright, who is vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are scheduled to hold a news conference Thursday morning. The Defense Department has not announced what will be discussed, but Cartwright is the point man for the missile defense shield program.
Poland and the Czech Republic had based much of their future security policy on getting the missile defenses from the United States. The countries share deep concerns of a future military threat from the east -- namely, Russia -- and may now look for other defense assurances from their NATO allies.
"At the NATO summit in April, we adopted a resolution focusing on building a defense system against real, existing threats, i.e. short-range and medium-range missiles," Fischer said. "We expect that the United States will continue cooperating with the Czech Republic on concluding the relevant agreements on our mutual (research and development) and military collaboration, including the financing of specific projects."
By contrast, Russia may view the move as a diplomatic victory after complaining about the program consistently for years.
There was no comment Thursday morning from Russian officials. But the issue has been a sore point in relations between Washington and Moscow, with Russia believing the shield would ultimately erode its own strategic nuclear deterrent.
With the program scrapped, it opens the way for Russia to join with the United States in taking a harder line on Iran, CNN Correspondent Matthew Chance reported from Moscow.
The United States proposed the plans under then-President George W. Bush, but since taking over this year, the Obama administration has been reviewing whether to move ahead with them.
The missile shield issue came up in July during a meeting between Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow. Obama maintained that Russia had nothing to fear from such a system, which would be designed to intercept a solitary missile from Iran or North Korea, as opposed to "a mighty Russian arsenal."
(http://www.drudgereport.com/put.jpg)
QuoteFLORIDA VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE
AFGHANISTAN: TIME TO WITHDRAW (September 2009)
To justify spilling more blood and treasure in Afghanistan , basic questions must be addressed: Is a vital national security interest threatened? Do we have an attainable mission? Is the operation “winnable†and is there a plausible exit strategy?
At one time, the United States had a vital interest in Afghanistan and that was to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorists who found refuge there. We invaded and toppled the government, but allowed bin Laden and other terrorists to flee by diverting troops and material to Iraq .
Since bin Laden and Al Qaeda fled, what vital national security interest remains in Afghanistan ? Bin Laden and Al Qaeda do not need Afghanistan as a sanctuary. Al Qaeda can operate anywhere. Some terrorists who crashed planes into buildings on 9/11 trained to fly in the United States and Al Qaeda is most probably centered in Pakistan , an American ally.
Is the mission in Afghanistan to establish a democratic central government? The central government in Kabul only controls a third of the country. Perhaps the Afghans prefer a decentralized government based on tribes and clans instead of a western style central government propped up by outsiders. We should honor their traditions.
It’s not the job of the United States military to prop up corrupt politicians and failed governments. Afghans must solve their political problems in their own indigenous ways. Our military knows little about Afghan culture or societal organization. It is not designed to build governments, but to kill people and destroy property.
No matter how well intentioned, American troops will be viewed as an occupying power. Interactions between our troops and locals inevitably lead to misunderstandings and resentments. Few soldiers speak any of the Afghan languages. We must ask ourselves, how would American citizens react if foreign troops were stationed in our towns patrolling our streets, stopping us at checkpoints, and killing and maiming our friends and relatives?
A continued presence in Afghanistan is contrary to America ’s vital national security interest. America cannot afford a large, long-term military commitment in Afghanistan in either blood or treasure. Our military has been over-stretched by the Iraq and Afghanistan operations. Through August 30, 2009 over 5,000 soldiers have been killed and over 81,000 have been wounded or made ill from the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan . Personnel have served multiple deployments and many suffer post traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury from explosive blasts.
Veterans for Common Sense estimates one million veterans will be treated by VA with as many filing disability claims against VA, which will cost as much as 1 trillion dollars over the next forty years. Our economy cannot afford the staggering costs to maintain military operations in Afghanistan without borrowing from competitor nations or raising taxes that will further cripple our economy. Like the Soviets before us, we weaken ourselves by keeping troops in Afghanistan .
If the mission in Afghanistan is to protect the population, the cost escalates. Afghanistan is about the size of France with a population of over 33 million people. The topography is rugged and mountainous. For American forces to “clear, hold, and build†it will take hundreds of thousands of troops that we do not have available without substantially increasing the size of the army. Every soldier costs about $100,000 to maintain for one year. (Each additional 10,000 soldiers will cost $1 billion dollars per year.)
The American military is not built to fight a “long war.†We have already been in Afghanistan longer than we fought in both world wars. No one can articulate a time frame for withdrawal.
A new policy is needed for Afghanistan that uses limited military force only when absolutely necessary to hunt, capture or kill identified terrorists who target the United States and our allies.
___________________________________________________________________________
Florida Veterans for Common Sense, Inc., a 501 (c) (4) corporation, 100 Wallace Ave. Suite 255 , Sarasota , FL 34232 contact FLVeterans@aol.com
Quote from: buckethead on September 15, 2009, 04:21:43 PM
Do you support the Afghanistan war?
Yes & No Yes back when we first went in to KILL the Taliban that had taken over Afghanistan. And No not now, once more we don't seem to know how to Win A War! We should give Afghanistan Two more Years then pull out everyone. We will never win here, there is no way we can kill or try to change the minds of the Taliban. These people remind me of a True Baptist who tell me I'm going to (Hell) if I don't believe what a True Baptist believes ???
Veterans for Commom Sense Advocates for GI Bill Benefits
On September 16, VCS sent a Freedom of Information Act to VA to get facts about VA's progress on the Post-9/11 GI Bill. We wanted to know how many claims were filed, how many were paid, and how long VA took to process claims.
A few days later, VA told reporters only 11 percent of veterans' GI Bill claims were processed, effectively leaving 240,000 or more veterans in no man's land without an answer and without money. Under the leadership of VA's new Secretary, Eri Shinseki, VA employees pulled a rabbit out of a hat - thousands of them. VA ordered 58 Veterans Benefits Administration offices, notorious or disability claim delays and denials, to open their doors to about 8,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans.
In what can only be described as a miracle, VA paid $3,000 advances to all of them using paper checks. VCS agrees with Bob Brewin, a reporter at NextGov: "Here's a real "Hooah" for the top leadership at the Veterans Affairs Department."
Even CNN chimed in with a quote from VCS about Shinseki: "Now over the next few months can he sustain this and get the correct amount of money in the correct time" to veterans?
October 8, 2009
New York Times
Op-Ed Columnist
America’s Limits By ROGER COHEN
QuoteHis (Obama's) words last month at the United Nations were important: “Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone. We have sought â€" in word and deed â€" a new era of engagement with the world. Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.â€
Far more than an all-powerful America, Obama sees the constraints of interconnection.
This is a relatively new language for an American president. The notion of the United States as an exceptional power, a beacon for mankind, has resided at the core of the heroic American narrative. From Lincoln through Wilson to Reagan and Bush, the lexicon of American-inspired redemption has been recurrent. American exceptionalism has involved a messianic streak, the belief in a country with a global calling to uplift.
Obama represents a departure from this tradition. Tom Paine said, “The cause of America is in great measure the cause of all mankind.†The president avoids such resounding exhortations. He even steers clear of the Clinton-era characterization of the United States as “the indispensable nation.â€
To the contrary, Obama admits American failings. He does not quite say America is just one nation among many, but he’s unequivocal about the fact that America can’t solve the world’s problems alone or in its image.
He announced the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in this way: “What we will not do is let the pursuit of the perfect stand in the way of achievable goals. We cannot rid Iraq of all who oppose America or sympathize with our adversaries.â€
He said Iraq should be “sovereign, stable and self-reliant†with a government that is “just, representative and accountable.†Note the absent words here, quintessential expressions of U.S. ideals: liberty, freedom, democracy. Obama has no illusions about the exportability of democracy.
All this suggests to me that, as he manages expectations downward, Obama will be no more seduced by “the pursuit of the perfect†in Afghanistan than he was in Iraq. I suspect he’ll punt for now on the agonizing question of sending more troops, neither rejecting the military’s requests out of hand, nor making a sizeable commitment. We won’t be hearing too much from the president about Afghan democracy.
America, forced by circumstance, is cashing out. It’s changing perspective, adjusting to a 21st-century world of new power centers. Obama’s new discourse was needed. But unless he can embody possibility in retrenchment â€" “everything money can’t buy†â€" I doubt he can carry the country with him.
I want to succeed in Afghanistan. I am afraid we have already failed by spreading ourselves thin before finishing the job. I will still support the effort if we have a reasonable plan for achieving our strategic and humanitarian goals. Do not choose to war unless you can decisively win. Can we? If we can't then no matter how noble your goals it is not moral to fight. If we can do it already it has been too long.
I want us to "bring the boys and gals" back home. Too many social and financial issues of a potentially grave nature happening here at home for us to still be expending much needed money, funds, capital, etc. on a singular global war effort.
In the meantime, from a retired Sailor, must support the guys and gals who are stationed and still fighting overseas and around the globe!
Heights Unknown
Quote from: JaxBorn1962 on October 05, 2009, 11:44:47 AM
Quote from: buckethead on September 15, 2009, 04:21:43 PM
Do you support the Afghanistan war?
Yes & No Yes back when we first went in to KILL the Taliban that had taken over Afghanistan. And No not now, once more we don't seem to know how to Win A War! We should give Afghanistan Two more Years then pull out everyone. We will never win here, there is no way we can kill or try to change the minds of the Taliban. These people remind me of a True Baptist who tell me I'm going to (Hell) if I don't believe what a True Baptist believes ???
Glad I'm not a Baptist; but I agree with you whole heartedly "JaxBorn."
In addition, there's too many pressing issues here at home, in addition to the war effort that are draining us financially and economically where we can no longer afford to "chase the Taliban and/or Terrorists;" and, the rest of the world are no longer supporting or going along with us in this fruitless effort.
Heights Unknown
What does it mean to "win" in Afghanistan? If we don't have a clear idea of that then we can never get out. Maybe we already have won as much as is possible in such a place.
Quote from: heights unknown on October 08, 2009, 12:45:21 PM
Quote from: JaxBorn1962 on October 05, 2009, 11:44:47 AM
Quote from: buckethead on September 15, 2009, 04:21:43 PM
Do you support the Afghanistan war?
Yes & No Yes back when we first went in to KILL the Taliban that had taken over Afghanistan. And No not now, once more we don't seem to know how to Win A War! We should give Afghanistan Two more Years then pull out everyone. We will never win here, there is no way we can kill or try to change the minds of the Taliban. These people remind me of a True Baptist who tell me I'm going to (Hell) if I don't believe what a True Baptist believes ???
Glad I'm not a Baptist; but I agree with you whole heartedly "JaxBorn."
In addition, there's too many pressing issues here at home, in addition to the war effort that are draining us financially and economically where we can no longer afford to "chase the Taliban and/or Terrorists;" and, the rest of the world are no longer supporting or going along with us in this fruitless effort.
Heights Unknown
This indeciveness is what is what is driving the non policy we now have. Candidate Obama had said he would focus on Afghanistan. Now indecision rules the day. Not a way to run a war.
Personally, I get bloodlust any time I percieve a slight against our country. Later, I start to realize that kill em all doesn't really suit me.
This just in: Killing people is bad.
I'm not fit to be ruler of the world. I did hope that President Obama would have better insight than me as well as better instinct that GWB. So far, not so much. Perhaps when he was briefed on the issues as the new Prez, he learned info that made things not as cut and dry as he had previously regarded them.
In issues of war and peace, I deferred to Bush as President, so I will do the same in the case of Obama.
At this time a phrase my father used comes to mind: Sh** or get off the pot.
We toppled Saddam from power and drove the Taliban government out into Pakistan. Isn't it time to declare victory and come home? If we could trust the government of Pakistan, maybe we should stay in Afghanistan long enough for them to smash the Taliban in their Northern Provinces while we keep them from coming back into Afghanistan; be an anvil to their hammer.
With the recent terror bombings in their major cities, maybe the Pakistani gov't will get angry enough to really do something. We could help by getting India to agree not to take advantage in Kashmir and on their border if the Pakistani army was withdrawn from those areas to take on the Taliban.
QuoteA Third Surge?
By Fareed Zakaria | NEWSWEEK
Published Oct 24, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Nov 2, 2009
Dick Cheney has accused Barack Obama of "dithering" over Afghanistan. I suppose if the president were to quickly invade a country on the basis of half-baked intelligence, that would demonstrate his courage and decisiveness to Mr. Cheney. In fact, it's not a bad idea for Obama to take his time, examine all the options, and watch how the post-election landscape in Afghanistan evolves. (Click here to follow Fareed Zakaria)
The real question we should be asking in Afghanistan is not "Do we need a surge?" but rather "Do we need a third surge?" The number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in January 2008 was 26,607. Over the next six months, the Bush administration raised the total to 48,250. President Bush described this policy as "the quiet surge," and he made the standard arguments about the need for a counterinsurgency capacityâ€"the troops had to not only fight the Taliban but protect the Afghan population, strengthen and train the Afghan Army and police, and assist in development.
In January 2009, another 3,000 troops, originally ordered by President Bush, went to Afghanistan in the first days of the Obama presidency. In February, responding to a request from the commander in the field, Obama ordered an additional 17,000 troops into the country. In other words, over the past 18 months, troop levels in Afghanistan have almost tripled. An additional 40,000 troops sent in the next few months would mean an almost 400 percent increase in U.S. troops since 2008. (The total surge in Iraq, incidentally, was just over 20,000 troops.) It is not dithering to try to figure out why previous increases have not worked and why we think additional ones would.
Find this article at
http://www.newsweek.com/id/219380
It is great to hear you support the surge Faye...
BT, I am all for defending our country, but to put our young men in harms way in the graveyard of empires is ludicrous, especially when we have already succeeded in pushing Al-Queda out of Afghanistan.
A holiday message from Progressive Democrats of America:
QuoteBillions of people will observe holy days over the coming weeks. Christians will celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ.
Understandably, it is a very busy time. It is also a good time to reflect on the teachings of Christ, no matter which religion one may or may not practice. The Sermon on the Mount encapsulates the philosophy of most modern religions and standards of moral behavior.
Two millennia later, the US is mired in armed conflict; many more will surely die, suffer horrible injuries, and countless numbers will lose loved ones along with their homes and livelihoods. This is madness and infuriatingly hypocritical behavior for a nation that professes to be "Christian."
The terrible human cost is underscored by the billions of dollars being spent to win a war that cannot be won, while domestic policies are threatened due to lack of funding.
The US war in Afghanistan is destined to fail. No invading force has ever conquered the country. Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires.
As this year comes to a close and a fresh year approaches, let's recommit ourselves to a world with Healthcare NOT Warfare, Windmills NOT Weapons, Books NOT Bombs, Employment NOT Armament and Housing NOT Humiliation.
Wishing you peace this holiday season!
QuoteThe US war in Afghanistan is destined to fail.
How defeatist. You all said the same about Iraq. I guess I was wrong about your support for Mr Obama's decision. Clearly he feels differently than the Progressive Democrats of America.
Quote from: FayeforCure on December 08, 2009, 09:49:04 AM
BT, I am all for defending our country, but to put our young men in harms way in the graveyard of empires is ludicrous, especially when we have already succeeded in pushing Al-Queda out of Afghanistan.
Well BT, my own quote puts it different. If our goal was to go after Al Queda, we've already succeeded in pushing them out of Afghanistan. It is not our job to continue baby-sitting that country 9 years later.
I... and ironically... Mr Obama disagree with your assesment... thankfully.
QuoteSo no â€" I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
Question is Why did US went to war in first place and What is objective of war???
What we were told on TV is obviously lie and cover up,there is more to story.
Both Al Qaida and Talibans are byproduct of CIA during Afghanistan war with Russia,only reason those two survived onslaught by Russians is because CIA ARMED and TRAINED them.
Without CIA,Afghanistan would be wiped out and controlled by Russia.
To think that Talibans and Al Qaida now are superior soldiers to US military and CIA is a joke.You have to delusional to think US couldn't not wipe out both of them in 30 days.
So that means only one thing,US want Talibans and Al Qaida for reason.
Without them and without War on Terror (trademarked) how else would US invade TWO countries in STRATEGICAL part of world,critical for US??
US CONTROLS both countries,not to mention Iran happen to be in between those two and Pakistan also borders.
4 flies with one strike.
Past 30 years there were lot of failures for US government to take control of regions,especially from Saddam Hussein but he did helped US in end by being bad guy and giving them excellent excuse for invasion.
At the end of day,US took old saying "If you want something to be done right,do it yourself".
So they did,went in themselves invading Iraq and Afghanistan.
Both places secured,Pakistan government is US controlled anyway and only Iran is left to be taken care of.
Everything goes as planned,only bad thing that could happen if sales of electric cars take of and batteries get improved when gas powered vehicles get kicked out.
Then again I dont think that will happen.
Strangely,17 years ago I got approached by some guy from nowhere and we started talking,actually he was talking more.
He started talking about war in former Yugoslavia that didnt even start,he said they will win even if casualties go to half a million.I was like WTF.
Well he was close.
He also said CIA will take over Afghanistan and entire region,to secure area.
Back then that entire area was taboo and considered "russian sphere of interest",nobody thought one day US would control entire region.
I thought guy was talking nonsense.
Well there we go 2009 and US controls pretty much entire region.
Dude your talking to yourself. Jessie Ventura has a great new tv show, right up your alley. Also use your prepostions for gods sake
Bostech, thanks for adding some interesting points,.............thinga are rarely as they seem, or as they are portrayed by the traditional media.
Time to put on the foil hats guys! Remember rule #1: People cannot keep a secret. These big, far reaching conspiracies by the CIA, Freemason, Elders of Zion, Illuminati, Vatican, aliens at the LeGrange points, are a bunch of bunk. Somebody would squeal!
There is an old Russian saying from Tsarist times that applies a bit: "When three people get together to talk conspiracy, two are fools and one is a police spy."
QuoteBostech, thanks for adding some interesting points
They ARE... um... er... "interesting". :o ::) :D
Yeah,except CIA agent themselves dont know what they are doing most of time,they just follow orders.
Sort of like Al Qaida where they keep their soldiers only on need to know basis.Top leadership gives orders to soldiers who followed them regardless if they understand why and how.
Exactly how typical US soldier fight in Iraq and Afghanistan but doesnt know exactly why,except its for "democracy".
Al Qaida fights for "Allah" and US soldiers for "democracy",rest of "details" they dont need to know.
and simple understanding of military,US military is largest and best equiped and trained (well maybe not trained) military in world while Talibans/Al Qaida are bunch of barefoot,uneducated peasants who learned fighting...from CIA.
US has trillions of dollars worth millitary budget and entire equipment,decades of experience,all sort of branches of millitary from regular soldiers,special units,undercover spies etc and not to forget 42 countries as "allies" while Talibans/Al Qaida number 40,000 to 2 million soldiers (depends what day you watch Fox News),$15342 budget,fleet of Toyota pickup trucks,invisible shield which makes them blend into mountains,trained by CIA,occasional access to Internet over dial-up.
Somehow US army is not able to win against Talibans and Al Qaida.
Somehow we have to spend BILLIONS of dollars for fight while Al Qaida can do it for pennies on dollar.
Somehow they have better intelligence,military knowledge and strategy then US military.
Somehow Talibans can turn Roomba vacuum cleaner into super deadly flying WMD whatever weapon while US spends billions on dollars on Raptors and cant do damn thing with it.
And talk about secrets,take example of "housing bubble".
Few people were warning about burst,but they were laughed by "experts",only to find out those few were right after all.And entire country followed housing craze 'till last moment.
Even zombies sometimes stop and look around before they proceed.
Quote from: Bostech on December 15, 2009, 02:30:32 AM
Both places secured,Pakistan government is US controlled anyway and only Iran is left to be taken care of.
umm...Can I have whatever you are smoking please?
He smoking CIA supplied Afghani red-bud. Special chemicals added to control minds. No one immune except special few who have insight into mind of world control.....or.., something like that. :o :o :o
Talibans got no budget problems,their soldiers don't fatigue,they train using "telepathy",they got no Tiger Woods,they can live without food and water for weeks and even that US military have been killing Talibans "by hundreds" every few weeks for past 7 years they can clone themselves in no time.
Super soldiers,they even say they killed entire squad of Predators,Arnold himself only got one.
QuotePublished on Friday, December 18, 2009
Stunning Statistics About the War Every American Should Know
Contrary to popular belief, the US actually has 189,000 personnel on the ground in Afghanistan right nowâ€"and that number is quickly rising.
by Jeremy Scahill
A hearing in Sen. Claire McCaskill's Contract Oversight subcommittee on contracting in Afghanistan has highlighted some important statistics that provide a window into the extent to which the Obama administration has picked up the Bush-era war privatization baton and sprinted with it. Overall, contractors now comprise a whopping 69% of the Department of Defense's total workforce, "the highest ratio of contractors to military personnel in US history." That's not in one war zone-that's the Pentagon in its entirety.
DynCorp instructor with police recruits in Lashkar Gah, Afghanistan, June 2008. In Afghanistan, the Obama administration blows the Bush administration out of the privatized water. (File image via TPM)In Afghanistan, the Obama administration blows the Bush administration out of the privatized water. According to a memo [PDF] released by McCaskill's staff, "From June 2009 to September 2009, there was a 40% increase in Defense Department contractors in Afghanistan. During the same period, the number of armed private security contractors working for the Defense Department in Afghanistan doubled, increasing from approximately 5,000 to more than 10,000."
At present, there are 104,000 Department of Defense contractors in Afghanistan. According to a report this week from the Congressional Research Service, as a result of the coming surge of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, there may be up to 56,000 additional contractors deployed. But here is another group of contractors that often goes unmentioned: 3,600 State Department contractors and 14,000 USAID contractors.
That means that the current total US force in Afghanistan is approximately 189,000 personnel (68,000 US troops and 121,000 contractors). And remember, that's right now. And that, according to McCaskill, is a conservative estimate. A year from now, we will likely see more than 220,000 US-funded personnel on the ground in Afghanistan.
The US has spent more than $23 billion on contracts in Afghanistan since 2002. By next year, the number of contractors will have doubled since 2008 when taxpayers funded over $8 billion in Afghanistan-related contracts.
Despite the massive number of contracts and contractors in Afghanistan, oversight is utterly lacking. "The increase in Afghanistan contracts has not seen a corresponding increase in contract management and oversight," according to McCaskill's briefing paper. "In May 2009, DCMA [Defense Contract Management Agency] Director Charlie Williams told the Commission on Wartime Contracting that as many as 362 positions for Contracting Officer's Representatives (CORs) in Afghanistan were currently vacant."
A former USAID official, Michael Walsh, the former director of USAID's Office of Acquisition and Assistance and Chief Acquisition Officer, told the Commission that many USAID staff are "administering huge awards with limited knowledge of or experience with the rules and regulations." According to one USAID official, the agency is "sending too much money, too fast with too few people looking over how it is spent." As a result, the agency does not "know ... where the money is going."
The Obama administration is continuing the Bush-era policy of hiring contractors to oversee contractors. According to the McCaskill memo:
In Afghanistan, USAID is relying on contractors to provide oversight of its large reconstruction and development projects. According to information provided to the Subcommittee, International Relief and Development (IRD) was awarded a five-year contract in 2006 to oversee the $1.4 billion infrastructure contract awarded to a joint venture of the Louis Berger Group and Black and Veatch Special Projects. USAID has also awarded a contract Checci and Company to provide support for contracts in Afghanistan.
The private security industry and the US government have pointed to the Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker(SPOT) as evidence of greater government oversight of contractor activities. But McCaskill's subcommittee found that system utterly lacking, stating: "The Subcommittee obtained current SPOT data showing that there are currently 1,123 State Department contractors and no USAID contractors working in Afghanistan." Remember, there are officially 14,000 USAID contractors and the official monitoring and tracking system found none of these people and less than half of the State Department contractors.
As for waste and abuse, the subcommittee says that the Defense Contract Audit Agency identified more than $950 million in questioned and unsupported costs submitted by Defense Department contracts for work in Afghanistan. That's 16% of the total contract dollars reviewed.
War on terror is big business.
Seems like in this War on Terror,average Americans and muslims around world are only losers,while rich sheiks and wealth Americans are making big bucks,they push their agenda and rules.
Follow the money.
Bos, a famous historian and philosopher once said, "For each of the world's great, complicated problems there is a simple answer.....and it is wrong." Conspiracies, "follow the money", CIA control, are simple answers to complicated, multi-layered situations. We humans can hardly organize simple things we all agree on much less manage some huge world spanning plan to fool and cheat all of the world's media, citizens and critics.
So what do you think its going on?