I thought Iraq was supposed to be the next Afghanistan...

And Iran is the next Iraq.

Gets confusing, no? Who's on first?

The Afghans are seriously opposed to anybody occupying their country. Great powers have tried and failed all the way back to the Persians. The British tried for a century and wrecked themselves in the process. Most recently trying to occupy Afghanistan toppled the old Soviet Union. What makes America think it can reshape Afghanistan in its own image?

That said there are a lot of Afghans who seriously don't want to go back to the Taliban but don't like being under the thumb of narcotics kingpins. We should be working to support those Afghans.

Ron's got it. Same old same old Afghanistan.

What's the Obama and McCain position?

Invading Iraq was unjustified, illegal, and counter-productive if the goal was reducing anti-American terrorism. Invading Afghanistan was justified and legal, but in my opinion will probably have little effect or even a counter-productive effect on reducing anti-American terrorism.

In both cases the Bush administration's real goal was to establish American military bases surrounding Iran for the purpose of American dominance of the oil trade, which might be good for oil CEOs and the political elite, but does nothing good for ordinary Americans.

NO PROBLEM, Commander George and the Lost Planet Neo-cons are on top of it. It's all good. Could I interest YOU in some IMPEACHMENT? 1-202-225-0100.

Perpetuawar.

Is it any wonder that oil is so high these days?

Is it curious that 50% of Pentagon expenditures are unaccounted for?

Seems like we are in an era when waging war is cool, and all peaceniks are "against us" and deserve to disappear onto elusive floating prisons.

I bet the huge drug trade is secretly supported by our military/CIA. Look at Columbia. Look at the huge hash/opium crops growing in Afghanistan and now Iraq.

But.... remember that the next terror attack in the US will benefit the Greedy Ol Party!!!

The surge is working! The media only reports the bad news! We're winning the war on terror! Iran is the new enemy! The surge is working! The media only reports the bad news! We're winning the war on terror! Iran is the new enemy! The surge is working! The media only reports the bad news! We're winning the war on terror! Iran is the new enemy! The surge is working! The media only reports the bad news! We're winning the war on terror! Iran is the new enemy! The surge is working! The media only reports the bad news! We're winning the war on terror! Iran is the new enemy!

Think my "50%" unaccounted Pentagon funds is way off?

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174948

Nope. I knew I was right.

God Bush America!

I read where Bush now wants to take Kim Jong Il, N Korea, off the terror watch list. I thought he was against talking with the enemy?

"Invading Afghanistan was justified and legal"

Sure... just like the US killing 3,000 (or so) people in Panama to er... 'arrest a drug dealer'?

Actually, I wonder whether Afghanistan is really the new Kashmir.

For years, elements of the Pakistani government kept a significant number of the more bloodthirsty Islamist tribal types occupied in guerrilla attacks against Indian troops and civilians in Indian-held Kashmir. Pakistani President Musharraf, seeking to improve relations with India, discouraged this, one reason Pakistan's Islamists despised him so. Needing some outlet to keep the bunga-bungas from blowing up people inside Pakistan itself, the Pakistani intelligence services are again encouraging terrorist activity in Afghanistan. This is probably made easier by the availability of financing and volunteers from Arab and Central Asian Muslim countries, uninterested in Kashmir but used to viewing Afghanistan as a venue for jihad.

I thought Iraq was supposed to be the next Afghanistan...

No, I'm pretty sure Iraq was supposed to be the sequel to Iraq '91, but it turned out to be the next Vietnam, which was artistically pure but a commercial flop, so I don't know why they made the sequel.

I could be wrong though. It is kinda hard to keep them straight since the GOP has gotten off message. We need a History Channel retrospective to clear all this up with a good, clean, simple narrative we can all understand.

Something with good guys, bad guys, struggles, the bad guys temporarily get the upper hand and then the good guys prevail at the end. It should be about 2:30 in length, and for sure not over 3 hours. The 3 hour version can go on the the DVD.

so obama is doing NOTHING about FISA and retro immunity - he meeting with corporate leaders in Chicago...

Fitting

Be sure to smile for the firing squad.

We are on our own. We are orphans in the storm. Some will survive, probably the ones with some means and no gumption.

Heil Dubya sounds good for an Emperor. Now go back to sleep and have happy dreams. The Homeland Gestapo will show you where to put your personal belongings before the shower.

So how can we use this news to bolster the case for bombing Iran?

ISTM that the biggest problem is that the enemy controls an adjacent area in Pakistan. No matter what we do in Afghanistan, the enemy can continue to organize and mount new attacks from their safe havens in Waziristan.

Unfortunately, there seems to be no obvious solution to this problem. The central Pakistan government is unwilling to fight for control of this area, nor will they give us permission to do so.

That said there are a lot of Afghans who seriously don't want to go back to the Taliban but don't like being under the thumb of narcotics kingpins. We should be working to support those Afghans. Posted by: Ron Byers

Tell you how fucked-up the Taliban were, are, a lot Afghanis are nostalgic for the Soviet client state (pre-invasion, mind you) days. The society was a lot more open and less religiously oppressive under the socialist regime. Girls could attend school and be doctors and stuff. Even without the Taliban, they're practically back to those bad old days.

"Invading Afghanistan was justified and legal"

Sure... just like the US killing 3,000 (or so) people in Panama to er... 'arrest a drug dealer'?
Posted by: Buford

How does attempting to destroy the terror camp network that was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban compare in any way to the invasion of Panama? Public opinion world-wide ran strongly to American intervention in the former. As for the latter . . .

Why the Taliban are laughing.

From the Guardian, via Real News, a short video that says pretty much everything that needs to be said about America and its (colonial) wars.

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=1702&updaterx=2008-06-24+11%3A03%3A18

ISTM that the biggest problem is that the enemy controls an adjacent area in Pakistan. No matter what we do in Afghanistan, the enemy can continue to organize and mount new attacks from their safe havens in Waziristan.

True.

Unfortunately, there seems to be no obvious solution to this problem. The central Pakistan government is unwilling to fight for control of this area, nor will they give us permission to do so. Posted by: David

I beg to differ. Tell the Pakistanis, who are about as reliable and useful "allies" as are the Saudis or Egyptians, that we will cut-off all aid if they don't sort out the problems in the tribal areas. They have a choice - allow us pursuit or do it yourselves.

I'd cut off all military aid in any case. While it offers a modest boost to the U.S. economy, it ultimately just makes the world a more dangerous place. We end up subsidizing so much of it and I don't want my tax money spent arming other nations.

"How does attempting to destroy the terror camp network that was responsible for the 9/11 attacks"

Do some research before commenting... don't swallow what you've been told by faux networks. Most Americans have no idea about the facts and history behind 9-11.

I suggest watching the BBC documentary series "The Power of Nightmares" (google video) to gain an understanding of what went on in Afghanistan... and the history behind the entire 'Al Quaeda' movement. If you don't have time to watch all 4 episodes, start with episode III.
In a nutshell:

The 9-11 attack was the work of a small splinter group of Saudi Arabians... to which Osama functioned as an financial consultant. His specialty was obtaining and channeling funding, mostly from Saudi Arabian fundementalists.

The so called 'terror camps' had little or nothing to do with 9-11 other than Osama liked to be photographed in them for PR purposes. The people in the camps quite obviously had no idea what was afoot. [Only a handful of people knew, that's how it was kept secret]

Apparently OBL paid the camp residents to stange demonstrations (yelling and firing their guns in the air) when he was on camera.

When it comes to 'fighting worldwide terrorism' Osama really wasn't some sort of mastermind or kingpin... but his fondness for media coverage made him a great poster boy.

The fact is that most of the residents of the camps were collections of the unemployed and disaffected farmers / urban poor running around with AK-47's... preparing for revolt against what they perceived as corrupt and despotic regimes in their own countries.

CIA estimated that 'islamic terrorists' i.e. what is now popularly called 'Al Queida' consisted of about 700 people worldwide. To address this issue we have so-far spent trillions and killed a half a million people (give or take a half million).

------- great lines from history.

Hitler: "Our invasion of Poland was legal and justified"

Tojo "Our invasion of China was legal and justified"

Breshnev "Our invasion of Afghanistan was legal and justified"

Reagan "Our invasion of Panama was legal and justified"

Bush "Our invasion of Iraq was legal and justified"

Bush "Our invasion of Afghanistan was legal and justified"

Ohmert "Our invasion of Lebanon was legal and justified"

---- for future use.

____ " our invasion of ______ was legal and justified". (fill in the blanks).

Since the end of WW II, the US has not been able to occupy other nations successfully. There are many reasons why. The most salient reason is the other nations do not want to be occupied, but the hubris, killing power and prejudice of the Americans is also a reason for its failures to occupy other countries and achieve the stated goals.

I've not heard the case Buford is trying to sketch above, but just a technical point:

The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan *was*, in fact, legal and (morally and prudnetially) justified whether what he (Buford) says about OBL and AQ is true or not. Given that the vast preponderance of evidence available then (and, in fact, now) supports the presuppositions of the orthodox view of the relationships among OBL, AQ, the terrorist bases in Afghanistan, and the Taliban, the invasion was legal and justified. There could be hidden facts that show that the predicates and presuppositions of the war were false, but that's a different matter entirely--one that doesn't affect the question of legality or justification. That is: the war might turn out to be a justified mistake, but a justified mistake is still, well, justified. Justification is determined by intentions and available evidence, not by unavailable facts/truths.

And that's the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan, of course. The evidence available at the time showed that an invasion of Iraq was unjustified. The attempt to assimilate the two cases is in error, and, incidentally, makes opponents of the Iraq debacle look like loons.

the invasion was legal and justified

Vietnam, Panama, Iran, Guatemala, Iraq, etc. could legally justify the invasion of the US with the same arguments Americans use to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The reason the US invaded and occupied Afghanistan is because it has the power to do so, not because it was legal and justifiable.

"ex-liberal" wrote: Unfortunately, there seems to be no obvious solution to this problem.

Well, one thing springs to mind: Keep bloodthirsty, incompetent Republicans and neocon jackasses as far away from the levers of power as possible. Which will be easy, considering how thoroughly Bush has ruined the Republican brand by doing the bidding of the clowns at the PNAC.

"determined by intentions and available evidence, not by unavailable facts/truths."

Not so... the hard facts and evidence on Afghanistan were readily available... but not publicized in the western media.

The intelligence professionals knew... but were ignored or even actively discredited by the Bush regime because the facts on the ground didn't fit with the Neocon ideology. (and that's a fact).

Buford,

If you're right about the facts, and that the government knew them, then you're probably right about the war. But, as they say, those are big 'if's. I'll check out the source you cite.

Brojo,

Actually, the arguments used in Afghanistan would not justify the invasions you cite.

As to the status of our intentions re: Afghanistan: there's disagreement among just war theorists about whether intentions matter (my claim above being rough and ready, but imprecise). My short take on the controversy, for what it's worth, is that intentions matter re: the moral status of actors but not (in cases like this) actions. So the war can be permissible even if the actors and their intentions are bad. That route has its own problems, tho.

But if the facts in Afghanistan are roughly as we think they were--and not, for the sake of argument, as Buford says they were--then Afghanistan can't be lumped in with, say, Guatemala.

Shoulda learned from Hitler about opening two fronts.

But if the facts in Afghanistan are roughly as we think they were--and not, for the sake of argument, as Buford says they were--then Afghanistan can't be lumped in with, say, Guatemala. Posted by: Winston Smith

While the West hasn't done jack to help Afghanistan get beyond being an essentially failed state (we leave tomorrow and it officially enters that category on Friday), invading Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban (Mission not Accomplished) was reason enough just as invading the Sudan to end the genocide would be or the Congo or Nigeria or, or . . .

The Taliban is fucking horrible and should have been completely destroyed. And while there are stories that claim they offered bin Laden to the West, these have never been substantiated, and don't change fact that the Taliban is evil and never to be trusted.

And in any case, if with the invasion we had gotten bin Laden, destroyed the camps there, whether they were connected in any way to 9/11 or not (Buford's unsubstantiated claims notwithstanding), and destroyed the Taliban, all would have been good things, and they probably would have been achieved if we had not shifted focus to Iraq.

Of course, then we would have had to destroy all the war lords as well, but let's live one fantasy at a time, okay?

Would anyone be surprised if the administration treated facts selectively and made up s#$t, with the help of our pathetic media, in order to gin up enthusiasm for invading Afghanistan? I mean, SOMEBODY had to be punished after 9/11, and it's HARD WORK when you don't have the address of the evildoers. It was a lot easier to invade a country than to seek out terrorists in lots of different countries. And then it was easier to create terrorists in Iraq instead of doing the same.

What are the odds that Buford is right? I'd say, pretty darn good. I presume that pretty much everything that comes out of the Bush administration, whether directly or through the media, has only a coincidental relationship with reality. It only agrees with reality when reality happens to favor what BushCo wants to do. I wasn't cynical enough in 2002. Now I wouldn't fight anybody on the say-so of BushCo. I'd have to see the jihadists parachuting out of their planes over Ohio before I'd take up arms.

Too bad they destroyed any credibility our government ever had in identifying a real threat to our nation.

If Guatemala had the power to invade and occupy the US, then our interferring with their internal politics in the 1950's would have been used to justify there invasion of the US as legal. The US interferes with other countries precisely because we know they do not have the power to retaliate.

"Since the end of WW II, the US has not been able to occupy other nations successfully."
_____________________

An assertion not tested. We haven't and don't want to occupy other nations any longer than we have to.

WE invaded Afghanistan to get OSAMA BIN LADEN, so where is the corpse/ prisoner?

"I'd cut off all military aid [to Pakistan] in any case."
_______________________

All we'd have to to then is find another way of sustaining our forces in Afghanistan. Airlift won't do it alone.

"and, incidentally, makes opponents of the Iraq debacle look like loons."
_____________________

Yet, we are likely to succeed in Iraq and fail in Afghanistan.

An assertion not tested. We haven't and don't want to occupy other nations any longer than we have to.

So you're counter claim is essentially "we haven't tried?"

That sounds like a convenient excuse after the fact. Somebody calls me 'slow' and I say "I could have set the world's sprint record at the 2004 Olympics. I competed at the qualifying events but I didn't really try."

As I said, how convenient.

Yet, we are likely to succeed in Iraq

Good to know just how detached from reality you are I guess. Wow.

I must say you are pretty amazing. Incredible really.

Hey Trashy, (may I call you Trashy?), as long as you are dreaming could you have the Vikings win a Superbowl too? That way when I die if I go to hell at least it will be frozen over.

Thanks in advance.

Any occupation that foments insurgency is a failure. Vietnam was a failure. Iraq is a failure. Afghanistan is a failure.

"As I said, how convenient."
________________

No more convenient than making the counter assertion. It is not within the bounds of our national ideology to seek conquest, simply for conquest's sake. Of the many times we've fought in and sometimes occupied other countries, we've seldom sought any more land than enough space to bury our dead. But far be it from me to be a buzzkill while you exercise your sophisticated worldview.

"'Yet, we are likely to succeed in Iraq.'

Good to know just how detached from reality you are I guess. Wow."
_______________________

Wow, indeed. It's not often one gets to debate with folks who want defeat so much they'll ignore any and all evidence of success. Oh, well, once President Obama catches up with the NY Times and notes our progress in Iraq, I suspect you'll catch up, as well.

Then again, by that time some will undoubtedly claim it's all a complete failure because the University of Bagdad failed to install a women's study program or something.

Trashy wrote: An assertion not tested. We haven't and don't want to occupy other nations any longer than we have to.

Another assertion not tested: That we have to occupy Iraq.

Clearly, Trashy wants to, so his asserion would seem to be wrong on its face.

It is not within the bounds of our national ideology to seek conquest, simply for conquest's sake.

Which is why Bush and the neocons whose water you carry, Trashy, who did seek conquest of Iraq for its own sake, had to lie to the American people in order to get their war on.

And why, Trashy, now that the lies are exposed and the failure of Bush's occuaption of Iraq are plain, the American people are not willing to expend any more blood and treasure to maintain it.

It's not often one gets to debate with folks who want defeat so much

Up yours, Trashy. But thanks for another admission you won't argue in good faith.

they'll ignore any and all evidence of success

What evidence of success? Petraeus's testimony? A reduction and by no certainty permanent reduction in violence? $100 a barrel oil? Bullshit.

Even the Administration, since its "Mission accomplished" moment, doesn't declare "success," merely an undending and vague assertion of "progress". Meanwhile, but the Administration's own benchmarks, the so-called "surge" has been a failure.

You don't have the credibility to assert success in Iraq, let alone divine the motivations of your betters, Trashy. Credibility stems from honor, and your bootlicking embrace of the warmongering neocons -- and series of dishonest postings advocating their reprehensible position -- reveals you have none. Shame on you.

Sorry, the 4:27 is by me.

When is the last time you saw a valid reason for us to be in Afghanistan?

Northern Mexico is still occupied by the US.

War is a zero sum game. Defeat for one is victory for another. The US defeat in Vietnam was not only a victory for the Vietnamese, it was also a victory of democratic Americans over fascist ones. The struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan are similar. Evil Americans want to kill Iraqis and Afghanis for some material gain while freedom loving Americans want to investigate, try and incarcerate the evil American leaders who lied about the reasons for the illegal invasions and occupations. Evil Americans prefer to kill anyone who opposes them, calling their murders victory. Freedom loving Americans prefer the rule of law and eschew the maxim that might makes right.

"Invading Afghanistan was justified and legal"

Sure... just like the US killing 3,000 (or so) people in Panama to er... 'arrest a drug dealer'?
Posted by: Buford on June 25, 2008 at 10:12 AM