Republicans will ensure that this Administration spend the next few years explaining to the American people how dismissing our military's advice has made our troops and our country safer,

I know this is "politically incorrect" to say, especially on Veteran's Day, but those troops are NOT making our country safer. They, like the troops in Iraq, are occupying a country and pissing off the inhabitants thereby making our country LESS safe.

Our troops are being used, badly, but they are not making us safe or protecting our freedom. Bring them home.

The debate seems to be over. What we're about to see is just an extend PR battle over Obama's decision.

This is the perfect time to say it, Martin. Through no fault of their own I don't think our troops have been used properly since World War II.

No matter what the number of troops deployed is, we should DEMAND a tax increase to pay for them.

After all, a fiscally sound nation is a safe nation, right, GOP? -you DO want to "Support Our Troops" don't you?

Haven't we been following the recommendations of the generals since day one? Look where it's landed us - years of this with no end in sight. Maybe the generals judgement should be questioned. The generals are in the business of war, wouldn't you expect them to keep recommending troops so the fight could go on - even if there's no "win" to the situation? I think Obama is right to counsel others.

I've been re-reading Barbara Tuchman's "March of Folly". Vietnam destroyed LBK/s presidency and LBJ himself, not to mention thousands of US soldiers and who knows how many Vietnamese. Looking at Afghanistan, I have the creeping feeling that I've seen this movie before.

Given the differences, there are still enough parallels to make me shiver, particularly the way short-term domestic political game-playing distorts rational considerations of national interest, the lack of a legitimate government in the "nation" we are trying to "save", the arrogant notion that we can succeed where so many others have failed (in Vietnam, the Chinese and the French, in Afghanistan, the Greeks, the British, and the Soviets), and the way our purposes morph to respond to varying conditions but always come out in the same place: we have to stay because... (you fill in the blanks).

The only ones who will win in this situation are the Islamists and the war contractors. All the rest of us, including the Afghanis, will lose.

"...they are just complete assholes." Really seems to sum up just about everything about Republicans.

We've been in Afghanistan for nearly eight years in order to prevent more attacks on US soil. How many 'terror cells' on US soil have been found in the last eight years? How many of them were stopped by all those troops in Afghanistan?

The real debate is not how much should we continue to escalate this war and prop up the corrupt puppet government we installed but over whether we should even be there.

Through no fault of their own I don't think our troops have been used properly since World War II.

For the most part I agree, but SAC was the lone exception to the rule. Take whatever side you want on the wisdom of the Cold War, it belongs to history now, but we were the one part of the military that was not ill-used.

Of course, that was a long time ago. SAC hasn't existed since mid '92.

Pity William P Polk's article "Vietnam Replay" is behind a subscriber wall. The old dude lays it out clearly. But others have as well...Afghanistan is a bottomless well of fail and pain.

That the conversation in Washington is so clearly pedestrian --infantile -- and concerned with narrow politics and not sane foreign policy indicates as much as many other issues, dying in the halls of the capitol, what an indecent government we have.

@Dale: "Through no fault of their own I don't think our troops have been used properly since World War II."

You're absolutely right, Dale. Since WWII, we've seen a huge and unhealthy military industrial complex become more and more allied to -- and even owners of -- our biggest and loudest media. And of course the biggest and loudest Republicans.

It seems to me that the decision that Obama needs to make is to continue with McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy or admit that no number of military type infidels who don't speak the language or understand the culture are going to have a positive effect on the situation. In the first case, McChrystal should get everything he asks for, as he is the commander on the ground and presumably knows what he needs. However, if Obama makes the perfectly legitimate decision that counterinsurgency is hopeless, then obviously no new troops will be needed. But to split the difference between the two, or even to shortchange McChrystal 5 or 10,000 troops as a sop to critics, is cynical politicking.

A few things to keep in mind.

You forgot:

Fourth, all the pseudo progressive partisan hacks who lambasted the bloodlust of a GOP POTUS will, without irony, cheer Obama sending more boys and girls to die and kill brown boys and girls.

Nationwide protest at 5pm (local time) the day Obama announces the surge. In Chicago, meet at Federal Plaza.

Of course Disputo, we ought to let the brown boys kill, rape, throw acid in the face, and generally oppress the brown girls over there that are just now getting a little taste of what it's like to be treated like another human being.

Tell me again why you think you're a progressive?

Because we all deserve some good news:

The New York Times reports that CNN anchor Lou Dobbs plans to announce on his show tonight that he is leaving the network.

Headed out to take care of a few errands this afternoon and before I was cognizant of what was on the radio, I heard Rush $hithead berate Obama on this issue asking when exactly he had ever made a statement justifying our presence in Afghanistan. Took me all of 20 seconds to refresh my hatred for that pig-turd. How in the hell is anyone but a fall-down stupid clown Rethug suppose to ever do ANYTHING right in the eyes of our new GOP (may they rot in hell)?

jilli and jrosen,
McChrystal reminds me of William Westmoreland of Vietnam fame. More troops! The military wants to win, but what does that mean in Afghanistan? If we don't know why we are there or what we are trying to accompolish, what is the point?

VoteVets has a poll on this topic. They have three options listed:
1) 40,000 troop increase to continue to try and "pacify" the Afghan countryside.
2) reduce troop levels and concentrate on Al Qaeda and the Taliban organizations (as opposed to their day-to-day operations, I preseume).
3) a hybrid plan that increase troop levels by less than 40,000. US troops major task would be training Afghan armed forces and only provide assistance for Afghani military operations.
None of the State Captains for VoteVets supported a complete withdrawal from the area, a position I agree with. Dr. Morpheus' statement above is perhaps the major reason for my choice of option #3.
There is a lot the US COULD do to help. People are going to die in Afghanistan whether we are there or not; it does seem to me that if we can accomplish anything while there, then there is a good reason for staying.
If the US remains in Afghanistan simply to try and squash the Taliban and Al Qaeda, then we WILL have another Viet Nam on our hands. If, however, our aim is to provide a basis for a peaceful Afghanistan to develop on its own, then there is no reason not to provide assistance. We do need to concentrate on just what we wish to see as an end result of our efforts, however. Certainly troops in the short term, economic/medical/agricultural aid and training for a longer period. With some luck, there is no reason Afghanistan couldn't be launched on a similar path as the one South Korea has trodden: a strongly authoritarian "democracy" that provides security and economic growth for its citizens slowly (3 decades, I believe) morphing into an actual democracy.
Sorry if this doesn't please the rabid "OUT NOW" group; I've always been something of a "loner".

Dr. Morpheus sez:
Of course Disputo, we ought to let the brown boys kill, rape, throw acid in the face, and generally oppress the brown girls over there that are just now getting a little taste of what it's like to be treated like another human being.

Would that be our allies in India, our allies in Pakistan or our puppet government in Afghanistan? They all do it, so you'll have to be a little more specific about which country we should be occupying to stop this behavior, because we're not doing a very good job of it.

For an update on the status of woman under our occupancy of Afghanistan: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091109/jones

Unless we develop a comprehensive South Asia strategy, the most we can hope for is a temporary peace in Afghanistan.

What would such a strategy look like? Well, at the very least it requires some moderation of the strategic competition between India and Pakistan. Without attention to this aspect of the problem, we really are only playing around at the edges of the conflict.

For more, there's a good piece here: http://bit.ly/3vYHPk

I have a question that I have not yet heard asked, let alone answered, in any of the places I usually go for news (NPR, NYT.com, various blogs):
Has any major-power country anywhere, in any time period (but preferably since the mid-19th century), successfully, and at a bearable, sustainable long-term cost, done what we're ostensibly attempting to achieve in Afghanistan?
Which is, if I'm understanding it correctly, emplacing and supporting to the attainment of long-term stability, a friendly, or at least non-threatening regime, in a former enemy state (or at least a state that harbored enemies)? And doing so without creating, by their presence and interference in local affairs, at least as much antipathy within that state, and in other states that might thereby consider themselves at risk of invasion and takeover, as had been displaced, defeated, controlled, or co-opted?
I can't think of any, but then I'm no historian.
Thanks and I'll take my answer off the air.

"Winning" the war in Afghanistan will endanger America.

And bankrupt it.

Good Day. There are two types of people-those who come into a room and say, 'Well, here I am!' and those who come in and say, 'Ah, there you are.' Help me! Help to find sites on the: Replica luggage. I found only this - nfl replica jerseys for sale. Anti example is installed when we want our life to our tools and can interact the propellant in our incipient fish without everyone, replica. Replica, depend the best imbalance to think your idea handled by arguments of teens on the rezeptfrei. With love :eek:, Ross from Burma.