I feel more confident about the direction of the conflict . . . that the direction is wrong.

The problem is calling what the US is doing in Afghanistan a "war." It isn't. It is a military occupation. This isn't a matter of "losing" or "winning" a war. It is a matter of ending or continuing a military occupation. To his shame, Obama has elected to continue to military occupation. It is a fools errand.

Unfortunately, Obama has again chosen war over peace, helping the rich over the rest of us, death over life.

He has yet to do something substantively progressive, or even centrist except relatively small stuff: keeping the narcs off of medical marijuana users.

I voted for McKinney, but Obama would'nt have been my second choice. In so many ways he's Bush lite.

Will a progressive please run against this clown in 2012? Anyone? Please?

In so many ways he's Bush lite.

Right. In so many ways. In so, so many ways.

Just like Bush and Gore were just alike, in so, so many ways.

"I voted for McKinney, but Obama would'nt have been my second choice. "

So *you're* the one who voted for McKinney. How did that work out for you?

Another Democratic President too cowardly to stand up to the clamor of the war party. Afghanistan will be the graveyard of American imperialism as surely as it was of the Soviets and so many occupiers before. And yet they're wondering why so many of us will not bother voting next year.

As Steve correctly pointed out in a previous post, noone can plausibly claim surprise or dissappointment with the road Obama has chosen for Afghanistan. He was outspoken all through the presidential campaign that his intention was to wind down the war in Iraq and commit to the war in afghanistan. I might add that this was also pretty much the position of John Kerry in the 2004 election debates.

You guys claiming that this is not real progressive policy - where were you in november 2004 and november 2008? Paying attention? I was, I supported this policy then, I support it now.

we have to keep voting for Obama. For one reason and one reason only: the SCOTUS. That's why I voted for him in 2008. Otherwise I'd have voted for the Green Party or something.

We can't afford another gooper appointing SCOTUS judges. We just can't. We need about three more judges, average age mid-50s...otherwise, we will be fucked in ways you can't even begin to imagine.

Obama is a tool. No question about that. But he's our tool. and we have to make sure he appoints judges who will have some small respect for the Commons. It's enough to get me to vote for him again, even knowing exactly what he is.

As Steve correctly pointed out in a previous post, noone can plausibly claim surprise or dissappointment with the road Obama has chosen for Afghanistan. He was outspoken all through the presidential campaign that his intention was to wind down the war in Iraq and commit to the war in afghanistan. I might add that this was also pretty much the position of John Kerry in the 2004 election debates.

You guys claiming that this is not real progressive policy - where were you in november 2004 and november 2008? Paying attention? I was, I supported this policy then, I support it now.

The man is Satan. He loves war and blood. And he hates liberals.

Really, as soon as the people who taught me everything I know, on blog comment threads, figure out how to actually get power and use it, everything will be great!!!!!!!!!!!!

Until, armchair quarterback away. It helps make society better.

as for the speech...what in hell did any of us expect? As Danny above notes, there is no surprise in any of this. The only surprise is that it took him this long to make the decision to escalate.

I suspect he went into the white house thinking there was a way to "win" in afghanistan, and that Bush and Cheney had just been incompetent. Now I'm sure he realizes he's fucked no matter what he does. So, he's taking the easy way out, to help ensure 2012, and take away the "pussy Dems" cudgel from the GOP.

I still think he's a total tool...but there was never any doubt that this was exactly what he was going to do.

From the speech:

begin quote

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions - from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank - that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades - a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for - and what we continue to fight for - is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

end quote

I feel more confident that Obama feels the commitment to succeed, and will persist in his commitment. It backs up his promises in his campaign and early days of his administration.

I'm as convinced as I was when Obama was pushing this line on the campaign trail: it was a sure road to increased debt, more radical hatred of us, and more sucking up to people on the right who hate his guts on principle (and it's probably the only principle they've got). It's a huge mistake, and our president, who hasn't expended any of his political influence on so many other issues this past year, really wants to push this.

I'll repeat what I said last year to my wife: we'd be better off with a McCain win--since the results would snap the nation so far out of denial that a real progressive would have a genuine shot at the White House.

WOW! You guys sure turn quickly. What was he supposed to do? Does anyone really think there was any that he could pull out now even if he wanted to? This is a mess, it is a terrible mess but it is the mess of BUSH AND CHENEY. Our President's only choice is to pound hard and then pull out fast.

Please one of you who has been trashing Obama here, let me know how you intend to ensure that Al-Qaeda will not take over Pakistan's nukes. I don't think you realize that there is an actual case to be made for having to muddle along in Afghanistan in some fashion. There is a movement there that really does want to destroy all of us, including even us anti-war liberals. And right in the same country where they have a safe haven are the nukes they need to proceed.

So tell us how you plan to deal with this. And if you don't have a good plan please don't equate Obama to Bush.

He offered reality based orientation; at the end there seemed to be a huge happy push to shake his hand, and if that is not significant to internet readers, from these soldiers; it is a far cry from the previous administration who dropped the ball while enriching their Haliburton cronies...let's face it. The Bush administration allowed our citizens to die in our own New Orleans --as the biggest deriliction of duty in my lifetime, at least.

I'm not thrilled with the idea of escalation either, but I do like the fact that unlike Bush, or Nixon or LBJ, he did set a fairly clearly defined, modest goal and a date for draw-down. CJM is right that Bush/Cheney left him with no good options in Afghanistan; I just hope to heaven that this one is the least bad.

I liked it better when Bill Clinton was blowing smoke up our backside. More believable and more entertaining. This left me depressed and uninspired.

Have a look at RealNewsNetwork for Laurence Wilkerson. (worked for Colin Powel)

Three part series about the real future of American empire in the world.

Bankrupt America will never have an other war.

It is just a matter of time and that time may be very short when China and/or Japan pull the plug on Americas masive debt.

You guys claiming that this is not real progressive policy - where were you in november 2004 and november 2008? Paying attention? I was, I supported this policy then, I support it now.

Same here. If you're at all surprised by this policy, you need to take some remedial reading classes.

Anyone know who directed all the Nader nuts here?

No choice. Those who ranted against him above have no alternatives, I notice.

Vietnam and 1965 it is not, thank God. Obama has a strategy: no blank cheque.

I would be interested to read any alternative strategy.

I'll repeat what I said last year to my wife: we'd be better off with a McCain win--since the results would snap the nation so far out of denial that a real progressive would have a genuine shot at the White House.

Did she look at you and say, "You fucking child, step out of fantasyland and go do the dishes since you're so useless at politics"?

Anyone who disagrees with Obama's Afghanistan strategy owes it to their fellow citizens to explain how they will keep Pakistan's nuclear weapons out of the hands of al Qaeda.

An unstable or failed Afghanistan makes an unstable Pakistan inevitable. And suppose al Qaeda gets their hands on a Pakistani nuke. Would they launch it against US forces? Perhaps, but imagine the chaos they would cause if they launched it against India and made it look like it came from Pakistan. The region would explode like mesquite in a brush fire. Then the US strategy becomes much more complex and costly.

He's satan? What kind of idiot are you? Anybody who thought Obama was radically left and that's why they voted for him is an idiot. If he's satan, what the hell are the radical right? Grow up. People who throw around hyperbole like that are childish and a detriment to democracy.

Obama said and decided pretty much what he had to, given the reality of what got dropped in his lap. Critics, remember he got that handed over to him. He can't make things turn out any which way he wants to. He had no good choices, only less risky ones. If you really think just pulling out wouldn't lead to an even worse Taliban state, at least put out a real argument and not just sentiments here.

Also, another real Republican would be an absolute disaster. If you don't like this or that Democrat, do your efforts in primaries and publicizing to get better Democrats. Don't do it in ways that help Republicans, like staying home on election day.

He's satan? What kind of idiot are you?

The kind that is freaking obviously making fun of people who call Obama Satan, which you couldn't have failed to grasp if you'd read his whole post. What kind are you?

Wow, the Reality-Based Community feels a little smaller tonight.

Wow, the Reality-Based Community feels a little smaller tonight.

No shit.

I'll repeat what I said last year to my wife: we'd be better off with a McCain win--since the results would snap the nation so far out of denial that a real progressive would have a genuine shot at the White House.

I remember back in '79, I had a similar conversation with an old college buddy that ran just like that, except he slid the name "Reagan" in there instead of "McCain."

The message was very clear - our Military leaders wanted troops - they got them -faster than they asked for. The onus is on them now. Obama has upped the ante. Victory or defeat is on McChrsytal and Petraes - it's their burden now. They have 18 months to turn it around, but the message is very clear - we're leaving - whether our Military likes or or not, or whether they can turn it around or not. Open ended military industrial complex just got their termination papers. And judging by some of the "former military" commentators on TV they don't like it.

Follow the money. Obama has chosen wisely. Thank you Mr. President.

"let me know how you intend to ensure that Al-Qaeda will not take over Pakistan's nukes."

al Qaeda members currently number in the low hundreds, and are scattered and poorly armed. It is just silly to think that a few hundred primitives with rifles could overwhelm the Pakistani military.

Smarter trolls, please!

I would define myself as a Liberal but even I have started to question myself. I support the Afghanistan troop increase because my belief is do the job and get it done. Obama was left with this pile of shit from Bush - we can't just pick up and leave that shit behind.

We did our deal in Iraq for whatever damnable self-serving reason the previous administration had - We now have to have the courage to remove ourselves and seal that wound but only after the job is done.

We did it in Iraq, we can do it in Afghanistan with the hope that we can do it for the right reasons in the right way now that we have a leader willing to lead.

I think the U.S. has to stop tearing itself apart and start pulling itself together. We have to start acting like adults and treat the responsibilities we have to each other and the world with the respect and perseverance it deserves for ourselves and our children. Since when do we throw rocks at each other and think that is the solution?

We must work together and find a solution.
As individuals - we are nothing.

Sounds like the Iraq surge speech with bigger words.

No legit government. No apparent desire for central government in the first place.

Leaving would be a better idea.

Two things: A time frame and the onus was placed on the Afganis to produce. Also, that the military is not the total solution. These ingredients were sorely missing in Iraq. If you voted for him accept. at this point, that he knows more than you do. Trust him. He ain't no Geo Bush for sure.

Honest to Pete...GROW UP. Obama SAID he was going to Afghanistan. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean he is less progressive. We really need to stop defining ourselves and then deciding that that is what liberal or progressive MEANS. I believe that Obama is SMARTER than you give him credit for. He will not do EVERYTHING I like but he will have a strategy for his decisions. Let McCain win and shake people out of their denial??? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? We couldn't AFFORD to have yet another nutcase for 4/8 years. WE need to get behind our president, give credit where credit is due, decide what we can support and work on THAT. There are 300 million of US. We can make a difference. Whining and sniveling now because you THOUGHT something does no good. Look at HISTORY. Obama did and I believe that that is why he isn't giving up on Afghanistan. Not that he's weak, not that he doesn't care about the economy or any OTHER issue you decide to attack but because he is looking at ALL the issues not just the one important to HIM.

Yes, Obama said that he planned to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. He's already done it. But it hardly will do to say that we voted for it when the other guy enjoyed singing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran".

Whether or not it was a promised mistake, it is a mistake.

Joel,

Is a direct assault on Pakistan'S nuclear facilities by al Qaeda the only scenario you can imagine that would get al Qaeda or the Taliban a nuke?

Smarter criminal analysts, please.

"I'll repeat what I said last year to my wife: we'd be better off with a McCain win--since the results would snap the nation so far out of denial that a real progressive would have a genuine shot at the White House."

I remember this same type running around in 2000 talking about how it wasn't so bad that Bush jr would herald the beginning of a new leftist revolution. Then President Nader was gonna come in and make it all good in 2005, I guess. Here we go again.

I couldn't make myself watch it, so have to ask you... Did he throw us any numbers? Combat troops, vs support troops? I doubt he'd have said anything about the (inevitable) swell in the number of contractors; that would have been hoping for too much, even though that's a much higher cost (in money) than the straightforward military expenses.

Sigh. I agree that he didn't have much choice (or: all the choices stank) but I wish it weren't so; I'm so damned tired of wars...

"We did it in Iraq, we can do it in Afghanistan "

WTF?

What does Iraq have to do with Afghanistan?

Well, they are both sites of US military occupation, yes.

Iraq has oil. Afghanistan doesn't.

Iraq has a common language. Afghanistan doesn't.

Iraq is an Arab nation. Afghanistan is neither Arab nor a nation.

I suppose one thing they have in common is that Usama bin Laden lives in neither Iraq nor Afghanistan.

Well, I'm glad to see a few sane voices here -- and I'm not talking about the Obama fanboys.

Is this nation at war? That was always the question under GWB. The answer was no. We were supposed to go shopping and enjoy ourselves.

Now, we have Obama and his supporters essentially saying the same thing.

If this nation is at war we should act like it. Double taxes on the middle class, triple them on the wealthy. Have a draft. Don't send 30,000 troops, send a million, two million, ten million. Send everyone.

Are we at war? No.

And if you disagree, then prove it by signing up. And if you don't you are no better than Bill Kristol or John McCain -- you are a fraud.

There are plenty in the Paki gov't that sympathize with Islamists, the number of direct AQ is misleading. Many fighters in Waziristan, Khandahar etc. exert much danger on the little stability there is. Karzai (Bush choice, of course) is creepy but the Taliban are worse - no school for women, acid in the face for unveiled women, etc. Bitch about LOTE all you want, that's the choice the world has been giving us since it started.

"Is a direct assault on Pakistan'S nuclear facilities by al Qaeda the only scenario you can imagine that would get al Qaeda or the Taliban a nuke?"

LOL!

Did you have another one? One that doesn't involve magic, I mean.

Smarter trolls, please!

Joel--Pj in jesus land is not a troll .
This thoughtful commenter offers an expanded view of a very complex, difficult situation.
You might need some stress management classes?
Obviously you are not a normal Washington Monthly reader. Try harder not to insult our more prestigious commentators. Really.
A triple level chess board is being discussed in the context of Steve Clemons of The Note, on Keith Oblermann's program.

Maybe a few people who were paying attention noticed how much trouble Obama is having passing even relatively non-controversial legislation. Considering his military advisers requested more troops and counseled a strategy of resolve, don't you think an immediate drawdown would have been a non-starter? I can't help wondering what some of you think it's like being president, if you think that having initiative after initiative blown out of the water doesn't make you look weak and helpless. You sometimes have to make choices you know are going to meet with broad approval at the Senate level, rather than take the over-the-top progressive path and get shot down in flames. Every first-term president's mind is much occupied with a second term, and I'd hazard a guess there aren't many second-term presidents who have gotten zippity-doo-dah done in their first term. And what happened to the reverence all you lemmings had for the military just a couple of weeks ago? When the military says, "This is what I think would be the way to go", and the president listens and concurs, suddenly he's "Bush lite?" What would have been your reaction if he'd said, "This is what the military counseled, but I decided to go with my gut and do the opposite, 'cause I know better"? Sound like somebody you remember? I hope so.

And all you shrinking violets who say, Ooooo, maybe we should have elected a Republican, maybe that would wake the country up" might as well man up and admit, "I liked the United States so much better when we were kicking asses and throwing money around like we didn't know where it came from: when we had leaders who thought with their gut instead of their head, and everybody hated us. Every good American knows they were just jealous of our freedoms. Even if that could have ended only one way, it was a hell of a fun ride".

There. Doesn't that feel better?

"Pj in jesus land is not a troll ."

Perhaps not. Perhaps s/he is merely a garden variety idiot. I was trying to be generous, but you're probably right.

Joesbrain, we aren't fighting a force that can invade us and make our country surrender like the Axis, but it is still dangerous. We don't need a million, we do what we can with the cost. No false dichotomy. Sure, we should tax and not borrow to pay for it. We always have to think about what happens. Just leaving the mess won't work IMHO.

Come on "on one level", what is a troll on Washington Monthly? I've been accused of being a troll, and I'm an original -- I used to be "Dicksknee" when Bush was in office, but changed to "Joesbrain" with Obama -- I must have a veep fetish.

In any case, on the Internet we are all trolls. United by our anonymity -- which believe me is a hard word word to type when you've been doing the drinking game during a Presidential speech.

By the way, it's a bad sign when you do the drinking game during an Obama speech -- doesn't that mean this President has reached the same level of disgust as the last one?

Good speech. Gain back control of the momentum, beef up security, tell the Afghans we mean it when we say we're only here for a short while, and start transferring responsibility in order to come home.

Works for me.

I thought the last 6-8 minutes of the speech was pretty powerful, connecting it to enduring American ideals.

He's made the best of a difficult situation.
Let's see what happens.

"And if you disagree, then prove it by signing up. And if you don't you are no better than Bill Kristol or John McCain -- you are a fraud."

So you're writing us from Afghanistan, then?

Or is "leftist contrarian hawk" a new sub-genre of Obama detractor?

"Just leaving the mess won't work IMHO."

Sunk costs.

We leave a mess now. We leave a mess later.

If we leave now, we can still save some American lives, both by preventing our soldiers from being killed in a futile military occupation and by spending money back home on American health care and safety.

We cannot import American democracy to Afghanistan on the backs of American tanks.

blockquote>al Qaeda members currently number in the low hundreds, and are scattered and poorly armed. It is just silly to think that a few hundred primitives with rifles could overwhelm the Pakistani military. Smarter trolls, please! Posted by: Joel on December 1, 2009 at 9:25 PM

Hey idiot, yeah I'm talking to you Joel and all those who agree with you. Al Qaeda has strong support within the upper levels of the military and the Pakistani intelligence.

Both groups kept the Taliban and Al Qaeda supplied as a thorn in India's side. Only US military presence and renew attention has dampened down (but NOT eliminated) that support.

If Obama just executed a Saigon pull-out complete with rooftop helicopter evacuations you can bet that Pakistan's military and intelligence groups will be back, full force in arming and radicalizing new recruits for Al Qaeda.

And Al Qaeda will be setting their eyes on the nuclear prize within their grasp in Pakistan.

Why do you think the Prime Minister of India was the guest of honor at the White House State Dinner? Coincidence? Or maybe to signal that the US won't allow Pakistan's nukes to be a threat to India by recklessly withdrawing.

Why don't you think for once in your god damn lives and realize that international politics can't be boiled down to bumper sticker thinking.

"Why don't you think for once in your god damn lives and realize that international politics can't be boiled down to bumper sticker thinking."

Heh.

Projecting much, Morpheus?

Pull the troops.. Not.

Preznit Hopey-Changey fails, again!

Nothing will be served by this (other than the MIC and Death's ambitions).

Send all Republican "law makers" to battle in Afghanistan and I'll agree with the policy.

Expat looks and sounds way better these days.

Shorter Joel, "I got nothing..."

Joel, give Al back his identity, please. Say, is this your ad hominem attack? I thought I saw you drop it.

"Shorter Joel, "I got nothing...""

BWAHAHAHAhahaha!

And you, little "Morpheus?" All you got is epithets.

Guess that makes you a manly man, eh?

Smarter trolls, please!

Shrewdly put by Cheryl. He's given Karzai, Petraeus, and McChrystal a year to produce something resembling stability. Then we're goen, just like we're on our way to being gone in Iraq.

30,000 soldiers doesn't even qualify as an escalation, let alone an "occupation force. We've been steadily losing that war for a couple of years now and he's sending in a combat contingent just big enough to prevent a last-choppers-out-of-Saigon rout. Essentially, they're a rear guard covering our withdrawal.

Whine and cry all you like, Iraq's winding down and Afghanistan is now scheduled to be wound down.

Best secret historical document we won't read for a decade or two: McCrystal reviewing for the president how his fancy new strategy is going to allow him to bag Osama Bin Laden before the 2010 elections.

neil b, I'm sympathetic to your argument. But I ask again, are we at war?

The right always said, stupidly, that Vietnam was "lost" because the military wasn't allowed to fight it -- it was truly stupid, surely we agree on that.

But think about "real" wars: WWII, etc. The nation geared up for battle, sacrificed everything to win.

I'm sorry, but no one seems to feel the same way about Afghanistan. Are you willing to have your taxes doubled to win in Afghanistan?

During WWII I would have emptied my bank account, given up my flatscreen (OK, maybe I'm stretching now), given up everything of material wealth to win that war. (My dad signed up early for that war and was wounded in it. Today we gladly celebrate their sacrifice.)

Today we aren't willing to give up a ten dollar gift certificate to Walmart to win this war. What kind of war are we fighting? A war that sends immigrants and the poor to fight, a war where contractors make millions, a war where no one feels it until it is too late.

I know it is a small point, but what kind of war are we fighting when Congress can't even get itself to declare it?

I ask again: are we at war? If no, then let's end it. If yes, then have Congress declare it, let's have a draft, let's double taxes and let's fight it to the bitter end.

War is hell, Afghanistan is business as usual.

No Joel, why don't you read the paragraph I wrote above the one sentence you quoted.

Care to address those concerns with practical solutions?

sweaty guy, why would I be in Afghanistan -- I'm not for this war -- you are, why aren't you there?

JoesBrain--don't think twice, it's all right/\\\\

"I ask again: are we at war?"

As I said in the first post of this thread: NO!

The US is not engaged in a war in Afghanistan. It is engaged in a military occupation. Al Qaeda is not in Afghanistan. Bin Laden is not in Afghanistan.

Time to end the US military occupation of Afghanistan.

"Care to address those concerns with practical solutions?"

The concern that al Qaeda will take possession of Pakistani nukes already has a practical solution. The Pakistani military. Only an idiot believes that the Pakistani military will undertake a nuclear attack on the US as an ally of al Qaeda.

This request does not deserve the dignity of a reply. The premise on which it is built is silly.

I find myself thinking of "1984." There's a conversation between Winston Smith and Syme, who is working on the new version of doublespeak. He tells Smith why the project is so exciting: Thoughtcrime, he explains, will be literally impossible - there will no longer be any words to express it.

That's where we are right now in terms of our discourse about these wars. There simply is no longer any political language to discuss or consider anything but escalation and more waste.

@Joel: The problem here is that you are painfully off in your attempt at analysis of the very real dangers of the afpak situation.

The danger is not a couple of hundred ragtag al qaeda soldiers holed up in some cave in the pakistani mountains.

The danger is the multitude of afganistan and pakistani islamists and tribesmen that are military as well as ideological allies of those al qaeda soldiers. The danger is that after the pakistani governments long history of covertly supporting islamists as a strategic tool against india (and during carter and reagan also in covert partnership with the us government as a strategic tool against the soviet union) these extremists permeate the pakistans military and it's security service. This is the same military that happens to be the real political power of a country whose previous president was installed in a military coup. This is the same military that has nuclear warheads at it's disposal. Do the math.

So, in conclusion: You're mistaken. In addition, frivolously accusing other posters of being trolls
makes you look silly.

two Nixon administrations-then Carter tries to pick up the pieces and is labeled a failure

two Reagan administrations plus Bush I -then Clinton tries to pick up the pieces and is labeled a failure

two Bush II administrations -then Obama tries to choose the least bad option in a horrible messed up situation...

Quit your petty, childish leftie bitching, and just imagine the speech you *would have heard* tonight had it been delivered by President John "Abe Simpson" McCain, with an able assist by Vice President Mrs. Confused Beauty Queen....

Now grow up, pipe down and pitch in. Jesus, what a bunch of crybaby fair-weather friends.

Let's not be at war with each other, good thinkers taking the time to post here.

"So, in conclusion: You're mistaken. In addition, frivolously accusing other posters of being trolls
makes you look silly."

Ah, Danny. And your perfervid imaginations are the evidence, eh? There is not an atom of evidence that the Pakistani military will ally with al Qaeda to attack the US.

Who, indeed, looks silly?

Pakistan is not going to give nukes to al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is not going to sieze nukes from Pakistan. This whole premise of a nuclear al Qaeda is pernicious nonsense, a relict of the failed Bush/Cheney war machine. No sensible person with a working knowledge of Afghanistan and Pakistan believes such bafflegab.

Smarter trolls, please!!!

TAPI pipeline. Agreement was signed in April 2008. Construction expected to start in 2010. The pipeline will run through Kandahar province. Al Qaeda is BS. The threat is to our-NATO's-Canada's geostrategic interests in ME and Cent Asia.

Forget Afghanistan. Tonight, Obama announced his own doctrine. A view of the US at peace and investing in its future, a partner to the world. He'll get out of Afghanistan asap. He won't start new wars or maintain occupations. If successful, this will roll back American foreign policy assumptions 30 years (pre-Reagan). Hopefully, he also end the other occupation in the muslim world.

Joel, you really need to brush up on your remedial reading.

I never said Al Qaeda would attack the US with nukes, I said that they would attack India with nukes.

And the Pakistani military and intelligence groups are packed with Al Qaeda sympathizers.

THEY HAVE BEEN ARMING AND RECRUITING FOR AL QAEDA FOR DECADES ALREADY YOU DROOLING MORON.

They only reason they are no longer as brazen is the presence and attention of US forces.

Now, go ahead. Give me your gosh, golly, wonderful idea of insuring that a nuclear war between a radicalized Pakistan and India doesn't occur once the US has withdrawn from Afghanistan.

Fuck "hopefully."

I voted for actions. End the US military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Now.

"THEY HAVE BEEN ARMING AND RECRUITING FOR AL QAEDA FOR DECADES ALREADY YOU DROOLING MORON."

So let's see. Is it the caps lock key that you think carries the force of your reasoning, or the use of the cheap, childish epithet "drooling moron?"

Smarter trolls, please!!!!

"I voted for actions. End the US military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Now."

If you voted for Obama last year, this is not what you voted for. As he made clear several times during the campaign, he plans to exit from both areas as soon as he feels is rationally possible. A vote for him was a statement of confidence in his judgement. You may not like the course of "actions" Obama is taking, but he is not responsible for your delusions in 2008.

How many of the "progressives" who speak of running an insurgent "progressive" against Obama in the 2012 primary will then fail to support him when the alternative is Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, or someone of that ilk? Do you think it can't be worse? It can be worse. We have a president trying to find an effective way to begin to disengage from Afghanistan (a place many "progressives" said was the "real" focus of the war against Al Qaeda, rather than Iraq, until they decided they were only kidding). How many will abandon ship because they will have imperfect health care reform, even if it enables some 30 million Americans without healthcare to obtain it? How many think having no reform at all would be preferable? I'm disappointed by some of these outcomes, and by the probable lack of the public option as well, but there will be a significant difference between Obama and his opponent. You can count on it.

O.k., it's clear that Joel is really the troll here.

He's offered no reasoned argument, no good faith effort to address the real concerns that are involved here.

Buh-bye.

I love this quote from Greenwald this afternoon:

"The most bizarre defense of Obama's escalation is also one of the most common: since he promised during the campaign to escalate in Afghanistan, it's unfair to criticize him for it now -- as though policies which are advocated during a campaign are subsequently immunized from criticism. For those invoking this defense: in 2004, Bush ran for re-election by vowing to prosecute the war in Iraq, keep Guantanamo open, and "reform" privatize Social Security. When he won and then did those things (or tried to), did you refrain from criticizing those policies on the ground that he promised to do them during the campaign? I highly doubt it."

I throw it out there to think about. Good night.

Poor Afghanistan: 10% literacy rate, years of killing by their own and others, more graft & corruption than even the US government, women abused beyond belief, tribal affinities that erode attempts at consolidation...bleak bleak terrain...opium the only money source.

Maybe this plan to START an exit will work. Maybe the inclusion of plans to help Afghanistan gain some semblance of stability will help. I rather doubt it...but I hope.

"Give me your gosh, golly, wonderful idea of insuring that a nuclear war between a radicalized Pakistan and India doesn't occur once the US has withdrawn from Afghanistan."

Um, if I type it in all caps and finish with an angry high school boy flourish, will that impress you that my abilities at foreign policy analysis and prophecy are a match for yours?

Sorry, pal, but I remember Vietnam and all the phony reasons we had to kill tens of thousands of Americans and Vietnamese. I learned not to listen to bloviating politicians and geopolitical claptrap. Maybe when you get a little bit older, you'll understand.

"It is just silly to think that a few hundred primitives with rifles could overwhelm the Pakistani military."

Maybe this argument would have held water before 9/11, but I think it would be dangerous to underestimate what those who hate us (and want to increase their power) will resort to. Also, at this point, could we please avoid the use of insulting elitist colonial rhetoric like "primitives"?

I concur with those who have observed that Obama is following through on his campaign promises. He said repeatedly that we would "hunt down terrorists," especially in the Afghanistan region. That was one of the criticisms about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

Also, I really don't understand why people keep thinking that Obama ran as a progressive. He didn't. He ran as a reformer, but not a progressive. Why anyone would think that McCain (along with Sarah Palin) was a better choice because it would pave the way for a Nader-esque Revolution is beyond me. The Democratic Party is by-and-large moderate-to-right, and unfortunately, the Green Party can't even manage to get on the ballot in most states. That doesn't stop me from voting Green and signing ballot petitions, but we have a long way to go before this nation sees significant ballot participation from third parties--it's not going to happen in the next 4 to 8 years.

In my ideal world, we would never have wars or military insurgencies, but I'm really not sure what the right answer is regarding Afghanistan. What I can say for sure is that I don't have access to all of the information that Obama reviewed before making his decision. I would like to think that we could just pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but Pakistan is becoming less stable by the day. That does need to be taken into account, but more than anything, we need to keep in mind that this situation is incredibly complex.

"He's offered no reasoned argument, no good faith effort to address the real concerns that are involved here."

Since the concerns you voiced here aren't real, they don't require reasoned argument or good faith. They are imaginary and show no evidence of the real issues in Afganistan. They certainly fail to demonstrate how 30,000 US troops in Afghanistan are going to prevent Pakistan from attacking India.

Biggest balls in the hall

Fantastic stuff.
Pure honest to goodness presidential leadership.

It's manifestly obvious that leaving a vacuum in Afghanistan for the Taliban to fill is utterly unacceptable. There is no such thing as a good Taliban. They are as evil as Nazis. The American president that would abandon Kabal to them again wouldn't be reelected, and wouldn't deserve to be reelected. Those are just plain electorally facts. If Barack doesn't escalate, his presidency is over...

Second, and here is where the big balls come in:

Any president can escalate a war without a deadline. That's the weak stuff of Cheney's and McCain's party. But it takes a president with real balls to set a deadline. Especially when the nation will judge that president on the deadline before his reelection. Huge ballsy stuff. I suspect this is a point that pundits will eventually settle on after they've become exhausted with the food fight over the deadline.

Third, I voted and supported this president's candidacy precisely because he told me that Afghanistan wasn't to be abandon, and needed to readdressed. I believe, like Barack and Hillary, believe, that the world simply cannot abide a Taliban Afghanistan again. They had their chance. And they fucked the world big time. Like Nazis, they shouldn't get a second chance. That's a no-brainer for me, and it should be a no-brainer for all Western civilizations. All this means I want AND expect other countries to join us in this endeavor. As Barack hinted in the speech he expects others to join us. That is news I am eagerly awaiting...

This is a good war for America. The Taliban are admirable foes who have earned the right to be exterminated. Americans have a ton of hate and anger seething inside. The nation will be better served if we aim this hate at Bin Laden's brothers-in-arms rather than at each other. The job in Afghanistan needs finishing. And this is just the president to prosecute it properly...

"Maybe this argument would have held water before 9/11, but I think it would be dangerous to underestimate what those who hate us"

WTF?

Do you really believe that 30,000 troops in Afghanistan are all that stand between the US and another 9/11 hijacking?

Simply locking the cockpit doors of commercial airlines has done far more to prevent another 9/11 than all the US troops in Afghanistan ever will. This phony scare talk is just like the stupid domino theory in Southeast Asia that destroyed the lives of 50,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese.

"This is a good war for America."

Then may we assume you are posting this from somewhere in Afghanistan?

Or is this a good war for someone else to die in, koreyel?

Obama SHOULD have declared victory and got us the hell out. We have long since defeated Al Qaeda, which was the reason for going into that armpit in the first place. Al Qaeda no longer exists in Afghanistan (the US Army states there are no more than perhaps 100 Al Qaeda clowns there) so...victory.

Get out. Save lives. Save BILLIONS of dollars.

"The Taliban are admirable foes who have earned the right to be exterminated."

Which will easily take 50 years, at $1 million per troop per year. That, my young friend, is the price of such juvenile blather.

I'm certainly no fan of the Taliban, but they are not the Nazis. No adult believes that the Taliban will ever control Germany, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece.

Hyperventilating is not a rational argument.

[i]Did she look at you and say, "You fucking child, step out of fantasyland and go do the dishes since you're so useless at politics"?[/i]

Gee, Norm, that made even less sense than you usually do.

[i]An unstable or failed Afghanistan makes an unstable Pakistan inevitable.[/i]

Considering that Afghanistan has been unstable for hundreds of years, without anything more than a puppet central government, I guess we're in trouble, right?

@Joel:

"There is not an atom of evidence that the Pakistani military will ally with al Qaeda to attack the US."

"Pakistan is not going to give nukes to al Qaeda"

"Smarter trolls, please"

I think I found the problem for you.

Your (i guess we'll have to call it) "analytical" efforts will not yield anything worthwhile as long as you keep modelling the real world with the concepts of a five year old.

In reality, the pakistani military and security service is not an atomical entity that will act in one way as if it had one will. It is by all accounts deeply fractured and thouroughly infiltrated by islamists. In the same way pakistan is commonly considered unstable. What, the last military coup was when? Oh yeah, in 1999.

- These islamists that you trivialize as a mere nuisance are apparently powerful enough to blow the former pakistani president into smithereens while she was travelling in an armored car, in public, surrounded by her supporters.

- Indira Ghandi, the former president of india was murdered while in office by her own Sikh body guard. That's what can happen in real life. If you accept the premises that pakistani civilian - as well as military - authority is thouroughly infiltrated by islamist extremists and that manufacturing of nuclear warheads require a lot of people, in what way is it laughable that extremists could acquire f.e. radioactive material to be used in the manufacture of a dirty bomb? You hold on to your opinions; i doubt they are shared by even one professional foreign policy or security analyst.

- The perpetrators of the London as well as the Mumbai terror attacks were Pakistani islamists; Pakistan is already exporting terrorists on a global level.

- A "Troll" is commonly understood to be an internet poster who flaunts inflamatory opinions that they don't really hold in order to "stir up shit 4 teh lulz". An example of "specious" would be a fancy tagline that has no bearing on reality, ultimately resulting in a lack of "credibility" for the poster in question. I.e. "Joel".

Cheers

It's good to see how many people get that this is much less about Afghanistan than it us about allowing the destabilization of a nuclear Pakistan.

While I detested our being in Iraq, this is something we have to address.

And, Joel, you're a total fucking idiot. This isn't 1965 and AfPak isn't Vietnam.

What I heard from Obama's speech tonight is that he's putting the Afghans on notice. We're leaving in 18 months whether or not they have their act together. I'm not sure what else he could do. If he doesn't send anymore troops, then he needs to immediately remove the troops we currently have there. But we can't just up and leave and not give the Afghans time to make preparations, so realistically it would still take about 18 months to pull out of Afghanistan. The other option is to send more troops and have an open-ended committment. Except for the Pentagon and republicans, that's not acceptable.

Nothing will change in Muslim world and its anger at America till Israel is made to relinquish all the territory it has occupied. US must leave middle east alone. Other countries only deal with middle east for trade only and have peaceful relations and no hatred about them. We need to co-exist and forget our interference around the world.

No one will attack US unless they are pissed for something. Once Palestinian issue is resolved and we leave most Islamic countries, we will be ok. It is time to show Nethanyahu his rightful place but AIPAC has such a stranglehold on our politicians and elections, that all politicians tow their line when it comes to Israeli policy. Yes, Islamic fundamentalism is an issue but that has to be solved in each country, US cannot do much besides financial support

Anyone who disagrees with Obama's Afghanistan strategy owes it to their fellow citizens to explain how they will keep Pakistan's nuclear weapons out of the hands of al Qaeda.

An unstable or failed Afghanistan makes an unstable Pakistan inevitable.

Fair enough. Let me attempt to answer this. Pakistan has a well armed and well equipped military. They may have trouble taking on the Taliban, the same way US has/had trouble taking on insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it is relatively easier to have physical security for a high value target such as nuclear weapons. IF there is a chance that Taliban or al Qaeda can get their hands on Pakistani nukes, it is not because they can successfully locate all the components and launch a coordinated, massive attack to simultaneously grab all the dispersed nuclear components. After that, they have to be able to assemble and use those nukes. This is not easy to do without massive inside help from Pakistani military.

In other words, al Qaeda or Taliban need massive inside help from Pakistani military and scientific/technical community to acquire and use the nukes.

Those supporting the escalation are arguing that putting more pressure on Taliban will prevent them from acquiring nukes. How will that help solve the problem of some committed, well placed, rogue elements in the Pakistani military giving nukes to Taliban? Remember, that is about the only way the Taliban can acquire and use nukes.

Will US escalation improve Pakistani military morale and reduce the chances of the collaboration nightmare scenario? Possible. But isn't it also possible that something could go wrong and inflame Pakistani military passions and make it more likely they are unhappy with the US effort?

Bottom line is that those bringing up the "Pak nuclear safety" as a reason for escalation are making the same arguments as Bush did when he used WMD as an excuse for invading Iraq. Dig a bit deeper and the argument can't hold up.

Pakistan has already proved that it is a proliferator. IF we truly want to eliminate further risk of Pakistani nuclear proliferation, intentional or otherwise, the US should unilaterally or with Nato help seize Pak nukes. That country already demonstrated that they are willing to spread nuclear technology, so they are truly a proliferation risk. You need different tools and techniques to deal with that risk.

Despite having worked in Pakistan and in the tribal areas, I have no idea what could work in Afghanistan and the Pakistan borderlands. The people that I met in and near the tribal territories tended to be unbelievably independent, stubborn, proud, conservative, and armed to the teeth, and generally make our current republicans look like compromising, undecided, atheistic, liberal wusses. I wasn't in favor of invading Afghanistan after 9/11 (just sending spotters, drones, and cruise missiles in after OBL), but given that we went in, we have a moral duty to leave it in a better condition ('You break it, you bought it'), as well as a self-interest to somehow keep it from becoming an even worse nursery of anti-american terrorism. Obama has been given a hopeless mess, and has no good way out. The only ray of hope here is that we have a thoughtful and intelligent president in charge, as opposed to McCain, Palin, Bush, Cheney, et al.

I can understand disappointment with Obama, but it is a counterproductive and self-defeating point of view. Learn from history, folks: apparently the Weimar progressives comforted themselves by saying "after Hitler, us", and apparently some Iranian progressives took much the same view with Khomeini (ask the National Democratic Front and the People's Mujahedin of Iran, or at least the ones that escaped execution, how that worked out for them). Bush was not the same as Gore in 2000, so we have to take the victories we can, and work for more. At least with Democrats in charge, slow improvements are possible in the future, rather than impossible. (Rapid improvement in this country just isn't going to happen.) The solution to Democrats being unable to do much in the senate with only 55 or so members plus a few aholes is to get 65 democratic senators, rather than dropping down to 45.

so, it was early august 1964.

i was running a department at a camp in northern new england. we were in the counselor's room watching a red sox game, when the baseball broadcast was interrupted. the televison told us that the us navy had been attacked by the "north" vietnamese[an act of war]. within a day, as i recall, the big-eared gangster, lyndon johnson, reported to the airwaves that he was retaliating with air assaults on civilian populations of the northern half of the vietnamese cordillera.

the public invasion of a people who had no capacity to do any harm to the usa had begun. the reinvigoration of the postww2 "looting" of the treasury instigated by harry truman in korea had become the national policy - excepting senator wayne morse - without debate.

korea, the lebanon, vietnam, cuba, nicaragua, chile, cambodia, indonesia, iran, iraq, libya, etc ad nauseam in no exact chronological order.

i know many jews in the usa who indict the 1930's german populace for allowing the 3rd reich to flourish. i wonder if they have mirrors in their residences.

no country in the history of this planet has ever gone so far afield as to murder "wogs". the usa is the zenith of international banditry, homicide. and this current regime of murder, perpetrated by a mulatto, is the zest of the jest. a half negro authorizing the mass murder of inhabitants of a country half a world away goes beyond a conventional criminal act. in a sense, it out-hitlers hitler.

I would be interested to read any alternative strategy.

Give every Taliban in Afghanistan $500/year for life (a middle class income in that place), declare victory and leave. Give them $100 million a year for 10 years to put the place back together.

It's cheaper in the long run, will achieve the same result, and fewer full coffins will come through Dover AFB.

"and this current regime of murder, perpetrated by a mulatto, is the zest of the jest. a half negro authorizing the mass murder of inhabitants of a country half a world away goes beyond a conventional criminal act. in a sense, it out-hitlers hitler."

The freaks come out at night...

tcinla,

you are a very smart individual.

i suppose because of my mennonite heritage, i have this opposition to mass murder by the state[it is why my forebears came to this country].

as obombya would have it, there will continue to be mass murdering. of citizens of the united states who made the mistake of doffing a uniform. of citizens of afghanistand who make the mistake of being in the way of homicidal maniacs from the usa[an unavoidable mistake as obombya would have it imposed upon them].

and lastly, there is no al-fresco. that is a fiction imposed upon the ignorati by the bushit regime. and there was no usama bin-laden alive in 09/11.

and there were no jihadis hijacking aircraft on that day. and anyone on this board who thinks so knows nothing about commercial aircraft, air traffic control, norad.

it is sad that so many know so little.

so laura,

tell us why you are so keen on killing the residents of afghanistan.

and subjecting us soldiers to possible death and dismemberment to do that.

i view those who countenance mass murder as the freaks.

why do you countenance state-sanctioned murder?

please tell us. i am all ears.

"Bitch about LOTE all you want, that's the choice the world has been giving us since it started."
Posted by: neil b on December 1, 2009 at 9:49 PM |

What's looking better to me now are those bumper stickers you might have seen about 13-15 months ago that read something to the effect of:
Cthulhu for President
Why settle for the lesser evil?

I was never happy when Bush used soldiers as stage props for his speeches. President Obama lost points with me for that. I believe that the military, especially officers, need to be non-partisan, and politicians need to do their part in not tempting the military across that line.

Generally not happy with the direction in Afghanistan, but I'll be pragmatic. It's not like we can make too many sudden movements, and if the continued occupation of Afghanistan is the short- and mid-term cost of slowly getting out of Iraq, and closing Guantanamo, it's a trade. Just sucks for the Joes and Mo's that die in that trade.

I do fear for my country though - we can't fight these endless wars on credit, and I see no end to that.

the speech that should have been given....

my friends and fellow americans,

some years ago you were persuaded by grotesque levels of propaganda,promoted by what might have been an illegitimate government, to countenance the deployment of u.s.soldiers to far corners of the world for no legitimate reasons to destroy sovereign nations and their citizens.

and the us military, and the mercenaries that we hired, did a great job of destroying iraq and afghanistan. to the extent that we can never restore the status quo ante.

all that we can do now is to apologize for the crimes that were promulgated by my predecessor. and withdraw as an occupying empire.

in fact, today, i am proposing that we retract our empire. and i shall propose that we withdraw all of the basing, investment of american military, that has been imposed upon this planet.

the american praetorian guards are going to be brought home. from korea, from okinawa, from guam, from germany, from england, from columbia, from panama, from honduras.

the looting of the american taxpayer for the sustaining of rapid militarism will be arrested within my term.

the opium/heroin war will be suspended.

i shall start bring home american soldiers immediately.

the empire is over. that taxation without represention will be a closed chapter in the history of the united states in this new century.

god bless the united states of america.

The audacity of... watching the machine consume yet another good man.

@rational:

At this point it is all one big stinking mess, I agree. The horrible strategic choices and cowardice of the Bush administration shown by using up so much of our material and moral recources in lying us into and then fighting us through the wrong war, while lacking the courage to try to deal with afpak - just because it seems intractable - has put us in so much a worse situation.

" [...] al Qaeda or Taliban need massive inside help from Pakistani military and scientific/technical community to acquire and use the nukes."

Remember, they need not necessarily detonate a nuclear warhead in the conventional way to wreak havoc (but the scenarios of coup or civil war and/or descent into failed statehood could plausibly enable them to do so).

"Those supporting the escalation are arguing that putting more pressure on Taliban will prevent them from acquiring nukes. How will that help solve the problem of some committed, well placed, rogue elements in the Pakistani military giving nukes to Taliban?"

My understanding is that the pakistani political elites have historically enabled and facilitated the ascent of homegrown extremist islamists and their terrorism activity in pakistan and elsewhere for wholly realpolitik reasons, i.e. as a means to achieve their own political objectives w/r to afghanistan and india. Furthermore, this is still the case when it comes to India and the Kashmir issue.

So the strategy that I believe the Obama administration is pursuing is to partner up with pakistan; pressure pakistani ruling classes to accept that the time has come when they have to abandon the islamists as a useful tool and root them out because the internal security of the pakistani state is now at stake. Furthermore to drive a wedge between the portion of talibans, islamists etc that in the end have no real interest in global jihad or the subversion of the pakistani state and can be won with security, wealth or influence, and al qaeda and the hard core on the other hand where the objective is to find them and kill or cease them.

"But isn't it also possible that something [with a military strategy in afghanistan and pakistan] could go wrong and inflame Pakistani military passions and make it more likely they are unhappy with the US effort?"

In my view, quite possible, unfortunately. But still, 9/11 happened when we had left afghanistan to it's own devices (albeit after much previous meddling) and London and Mumbai happened with the pakistanis still turning a blind eye towards its islamists (and in the case of Mumbai, arguably with their approval, at least from the view of the indians).

In addition, I personally think that it's a travesty that the men that orchestrated the attack that killed 3000 americans on 9/11 can sit holed up in the pakistani mountains without being brought to justice. The problem with Bush was not invoking 9/11 as a call to action - it was invoking it in the service of lying us into a war in Irak that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and did nothing to punish those responsible. Elimination of the Al Qaeda presence in afpak and the pakistani enablers may go some way in removing the force that drives afpak islamists to "go global".

At least I hope it would but, in all honesty, I am not sure.

"Bottom line is that those bringing up the "Pak nuclear safety" as a reason for escalation are making the same arguments as Bush did when he used WMD as an excuse for invading Iraq."

No. In the case of Irak it was a lie used to justify a policy that Wolfowitz, Perle et al were already pursuing before 9/11. Irak was not involved in 9/11, Al Qaeda presence in Irak (before the war) was negligible, all evidence prewar pointed to the fact that Irak did not possess nuclear weapons and had no plausible road to acquiring them. Neither of that is true for afpak. The equivalence is skin deep.

It is only yet one more transgression of the Bush administration that they have now discredited these arguments where they are relevant and should be applied.

"IF we truly want to eliminate further risk of Pakistani nuclear proliferation, intentional or otherwise, the US should unilaterally or with Nato help seize Pak nukes."

This line of action is impossible in a number of ways, as I'm sure you'll realize when you think about it. Were it possible, it would without uncertainty lead to exactly those consequences that you worry about above (inflame Pakistani military passions, etc) and is a mere possibility (albeit all to real) in the current scenario.

As long as there are nation-states, there's going to be a continuing real need for a formal international process of receiver-in-possession for failed nation-states. They're a nuisance to their neighbors and often a hellhole for the people who live there.

Afghanistan is not the last time this kind of problem will come up and eventually a workable solution must be found. The fact that we cannot be the world's policeman doesn't mean there is no 'crime'.

NATO and the US big-footing around is not the answer to the problem, but that's not the same thing as saying there is no problem. And waiting for the inevitable withering away of the state isn't a very effective solution, either.

We're ad-hoc-ing something that needs to be settled permanently, multilaterally, by the world community, for the sake of the peace of our shared planet and the safety of its inhabitants.

This is something the nations of the world are going to have to grasp the nettle on sooner or later, with all its problems of sovereignty, 'interference in purely internal matters', etc.

@danny:

Thanks for the healthy discussion.

why do you think he was/is a good man?

because he is a negro?

wayne madsen, an investigator of the secret state, identifies obombya as a spook.

in a sense, a brother of so many of his presidential predecessors.

ronald raygun, george herbert walker bush, bill clinton, george walker bush.

and i think that madsen gets it accurately.

there were those hidden years at columbia. and then there were those years when obombya became an acolyte of the great gamester, zbibniev brezinski[a david rockefeller courtier].

when you think about this mulatto, also think about his ties to the daley crime syndicate.

all of this a history that was ignored during the run.

just as no one wanted to investigate the boner contest[kerry versus bush].

and it was of great interest to see john forbes[a family whose fortune was based on the opium trade] kerry going to afghanistan to back-slap the opium-trafficking karzai regime.

you know, laura, i shall come out in the daylight to tell you that you don't know shit form shinola.

@rational

Right back atcha! I think we share a common interest in getting this fucking mess sorted out and some doubts how the hell it can be done. (I suspect the POTUS is having some of those same thoughts) :)

we ran aq khan. deal with that.

and cheney busted brewster-jennings so as to squelch his administration's involvement in the global nuclear traffic[along with the opium traffic].

grow up people.

what a fetid, unproductive discussion has been produced here, especially from aggressive morons like Joel and albertchampion.

Moderators at washingtonmonthly -- please consider a policy of blocking or disemvowelling posts that have gone so explicitly racist as to refer to Obama as "this mulatto." I am extremely uncomfortable with having this comment section turn into a explicit forum for racial hatred.

Many of you supporting Obama here are offering up explanations as patently weak as Bush's rationales for war/troop escalations. I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about Pakistani nukes falling into the wrong hands. I'm not even sure immediate withdrawal or drawdown is the right way to go.

What I disagree with is this facile notion that if we double down in Afghanistan, we'll stabilize the place once and for all. I suppose it could happen, however, couldn't it just as likely have the opposite effect: the presence of our occupying forces and UAV bombings breeding more resentment among the populace. It's not just the Taliban who resent our presence, and see us as propping up a corrupt, illegitimate Western puppet government. What if our presence is on net destabilizing?

no racial hatred here.

he is a mulatto. technically a half-breed. a reality.

and he is the rascist. authorizing war on residents of afghanistan. for being residents of afghnanistan.

and opposing the invasion/occupation of their country.

the mulatto state calls them insurgents.

funny, i call all who oppose our invaders and occupiers PATRIOTS.

The Taliban is the closest thing to a strong central government that Afghanistan has ever and will ever have. Why is the "collective" in denial about such an obvious conclusion? Riddle me that! Oh well, what's a power vacuum today vs. a power vacuum when we (supposedly) leave in x years? Does anybody truly believe that Iraq will remain "stable" after a US withdrawal? If I wasn't sober already I'd have what the President and the MIC are smoking! I realize there are no good decisions to make but the best one to make is to GTFO of Afghanistan now and save lives (and money!). Now we have the unfortunate pleasure of wasting copious amounts of both in the most famous guerilla paradise in history. Do people read history books anymore? I personally know that there's a virtual cornucopia of information on the internets alone! I'll bet General Petranus and McCrackhead are happy as clams at a luau! Thanks President Hopey-Changey! No change and no hope! I hope there is no other choice but a draft soon because that's the only way to wake up this country when it comes to useless bloodshed. Again, thanks for the principles of liberty there preznit.

-Your "fair weather friend" (You know, like the principles of liberty, freedom, transparancy, honesty, intelligence, etc.) When you get back to the Bronze age, let's have lunch!

I didn't hear him mentioning the coveted gas pipeline from the Caspian through Afghanistan that Cheney's oil buddies are all hot to trot over. That is supposedly one of the big geopolitical reasons we need to occupy the region. We got the cover story tonight.

and by the way, let us consider the order of battle in the afghanistan theater of war - a war that the usa invented.

can you tell me the role of blackwater[xe], dyncorp here?

have you never wanted to know who runs the mercenaries?

the jcs? or the potus?

do you not want to know the machinations of this invasion, occupation?

are you content to entertain the prevarications concerning the events of 11/09/01?

would you like to ask the iraqi, afghanistani citizenry how happy they are with what the usa did to them, is doing to them?

why are you a homicidal bastid?

Afghanistan is Bush's folly, period. He had al-Qaida on the ropes and foolishly opened another front in Iraq. Neglecting Afghanistan, Bush left Obama with a responsibility to the Afghan people, but with no good options.

Whatever the outcome is in Afghanistan, the blame is Bush's.

Some of this Afghan strategy is pure horsecrap. We know the country is corrupt. So what? We're there for our interests, not to be the Afghan police force. Note that Obama, Pelosi, Durbin, et. al., are just as bad in not enforcing immigration laws so they can rig elections by naturalizing millions of illegal aliens. pot calling the kettle black.

Our big security problem is actually the corruptocrats in Washington holding the borders open for illegal aliens. Note that the 9/11 terrorists were based in the US. We're fighting them over there so Washington can keep our borders open for illegal aliens. If Washington were really concerned about national security, that is something that starts at the borders, not with a bunch of wife beaters in Afghanistan.

@garnash

"What I disagree with is this facile notion that if we double down in Afghanistan, we'll stabilize the place once and for all. I suppose it could happen, however, couldn't it just as likely have the opposite effect: the presence of our occupying forces and UAV bombings breeding more resentment among the populace. It's not just the Taliban who resent our presence, and see us as propping up a corrupt, illegitimate Western puppet government. What if our presence is on net destabilizing?"

If you read up on the strategy that the administration and the military hope to accomplish through the addition of more troops it is actually focused on minimizing civilian casualties and being able to offer security to the civilian population, thereby removing recruiting tools for the taliban and al qaeda.

Will it work? There are no guarantees. Could it backfire? Sure.

On the other hand: Is it quite possible that just muddling through with the same amount of troops would result in more civilian casualties and more animosity?

Certainly. Trying to control a huge area of unaccessible terrain with 50 thousand troops puts the troops in a position where mistakes are likely and the use of heavy air cover is necessary. Bomb strikes is hardly an exakt tool, as proven over and over again, in afghanistan in particular which you know if you have been following the news the last years. An insufficiently large force ends up holed upp in fortified compounds where they cannot interact with the civilian population, increasing mutual suspicion and animosity.

My own doubts are rather if 100 thousand or 200 hundred thousand troops would be sufficient in afghanistan. I had a long talk the other day with a girl that worked in a civilian capacity in the compound of one of the european forces in northeast afghanistan. Her description of the remoteness and inaccessibility of the villages in the mountains - which constitute territory where security is supposed to be provided - clearly underscores the magnitude of the challenge. But then, 3-400 thousand troops are not available. You go to war with the army you have, someone once said. He was an idiot, but still.

In the end, pretending that outcome in support or resentment from the civilian population has not been a consideration is a misunderstanding. It is in fact a core component of McChrystals et als counterinsurgency strategy and the main reason for him requesting more troops. Arguing otherwise is arguing from ignorance. I buy their general analysis: most afghans want security - that was what the taliban originally offered and the main reason for their ascent.

the sadness is, of course, that there are individuals who think that destroying countries[iraq, afghanistan] is quite OK. that the usa can do anything it damn well pleases.

that iraqi, afghani citizens are deserving of our implementation of death and destruction.

for revenging the official conspiracy theory concerning the events of 11.09/01.

no iraqi citizen, no afghanistani citizen, had anything to do with the events of that day. murdering any of those individuals is just an incident of nouveau-hitlerism.

Wow! What a collection of ignorant savages here. Do any of you 'folks', Obama and Bush like this word, know what the act of blowing the hell out of a wedding party with a Hellfire missile or dropping white phosphorus onto a residential neighborhood is defined as under international law?

Do any of you folks soiling your diapers about 'Muslim nukes' think that the word has not been given to every nation on this planet to the effect that should a nuclear device detonate in the U.S. it's country of origin will cease to exist in a massive nuclear strike from our ICBM forces? MAD worked for decades with the Russians and it still works with those folks around the fanatics who don't want to sacrifice their entire nation to so flea-bitten mullah.

Obama is just another desperate attempt by Corporate Slave State America to hold off the rising tide of change coming it's way. Think about it, we live in a nation which assigns no costs to the pollution of the environment, which operates an economic system whose basic axiom is unlimited growth, whose children are getting an education that falls further behind that of those kids living in the EU, India and many other places in the world.

A nation that is convinced that there is a good profit to be made off the sick. Indeed, that if you are sick it's a sign of God's disfavor.

Better look in the mirror and see who's really at fault here.

It ain't Obama. He's just a puppet for the folks who really own this nation. And all of you here are letting them continue with their enslavement of what we laughingly used to call...

...'Citizen'.

he is a mulatto. technically a half-breed. a reality.

Stop that! He's an American. No one would call him a mulatto or half-breed without racist spite.

And quit calling Joel a "troll", those who do.

@A.Citizen

"Do any of you [..] know what the act of blowing the hell out of a wedding party with a Hellfire missile or dropping white phosphorus onto a residential neighborhood is defined as under international law?"

As pointed out, the strategy and troop increase being implemented at this moment is designed to avoid exactly such occurances.

"Do any of you [..] think word has not been given to every nation on this planet to the effect that should a nuclear device detonate in the U.S. it's country of origin will cease to exist in a massive nuclear strike from our ICBM forces?"

Al Qaeda (or any other violent extremists prone to terrorism in general) are not a country that can be nuked, and accordingly MAD cannot penetrate their super armor of fanaticism and non-statehood.

"Obama is just another desperate attempt by Corporate Slave State America to hold off the rising tide of change coming it's way."

The "rising tide of change" that you're waiting for will never come, or we better hope it never will. Good, progressive, incremental change for every citizen of the world is what makes the world a better place and something for (well adjusted) grownups to work together towards.

"Think about it, we live in a nation which assigns no costs to the pollution of the environment"

That is a fucking travesty. Obama is a member of the political party that is trying to pass legislation to change that. I suggest you go out there and help him.

"which operates an economic system whose basic axiom is unlimited growth"

I am cool with growth, as long as it is sustainable. Growth has pulled a billion people around the world out of poverty in the last 30 years. Those are real people, real sufferings and real unnecessary deaths.

"whose children are getting an education that falls further behind that of those kids living in the EU, India and many other places in the world."

The solution is... not... whining...! It is working towards progressive policy goals for education, like.... our president is.

"A nation that is convinced that there is a good profit to be made off the sick."

That is a travesty. This health care reform is a first step towards correcting that.

"Indeed, that if you are sick it's a sign of God's disfavor."

That is despicable. Every progressive should be a good advocate in (respectfully) pointing out how morally bankrupt such views are.

"Better look in the mirror and see who's really at fault here."

Better look in the mirror, grow up, get thumb out of ass.

"It ain't Obama. He's just a puppet for the folks who really own this nation."

"Puppet" is a disqualifying word, and the whole concept of politicians as puppets is only enabling the genuinely unproductive behavior of whining, throwing your hands and doing fucking nothing.

"And all of you here are letting them continue with their enslavement of what we laughingly used to call... ...'Citizen'."

Which is apparently someone who courageously whines on internet messageboards, is prone to magical thinking, and plans to replace "the real masters" exactly.... how?

What a depressing crowd here.

How can one go to a blog populated by self-styled "progressives" and find a rousing cheer for a war -- and a war that only a distinct minority of Americans (not exactly the most peace loving of peoples) seem to support?

Have you finally no shame? Will your fanboyhood trump any possibility of common sense or basic human decency?

Really, our politics are busted forever. There is no progressive movement. It's gone. The Obama movement has swallowed it up and spit out the stinking and corroded remains.

And here they come to exude their stink.

One other quick point.

I gather progressives are not supposed to criticize Obama over Afghanistan because he campaigned on the promise that he would do what he is now doing there.

What's of course a trifle absurd is that if a progressive had ever chosen NOT to support Obama because of his stand on Afghanistan, he or she would be excoriated for his failure to back Obama against the Republican opponent. And of course if a progressive in 2012 decides not to support Obama it will be the same story: how dare you not support Obama when he's running against a Republican?

So when do we get to criticize Obama on the Afghanistan war, or on any other issue? Why never of course. Certainly not while he's up for election. And, likewise, certainly not after he takes on a term of office, because then we "already knew" he'd be adopting the position we detested, yet we supported his election.

And no criticism at any time is exactly what the fanboys want and demand.

@An Observer

There is no fucking "rousing cheer" something you'd bloody well know had you taken the fucking time to read the actual posts.

There is on the one hand grown up people with differing opinions, honestly laying out their reasons for believing what they do. There is on the other hand the usual internet phenomenon of various fringe people posting with a multitude of socks presumably to convince themselves they are in good company, "operation chaos" style undercover freepers cleverly masquerading as progressives to fuck with the democrats etc.

Finally there are people with reasonable opinions that they are entitled to, but who cannot for their life be bothered to express them in a courteous, coherent, properly argued way and acknowledge the complexity of the issues and the necessary room for honest disagreement and instead choses to revert to empty namecalling.

Those latter ones are the biggest waste of resources, all IMHO.

Oh, and it's an especially nice touch to see the "progressive" fanboys parroting the "mushroom cloud" part of Obama's speech. Sure, Pakistan and Afghanistan might be different countries, but I'm sure there's got to be real important connection - you know, a domino effect -- and we've got to do something about the mushroom cloud!!!

Don't let it ever be said that the fanboys of Bush had nothing to teach the fanboys of Obama.

Yes, Obama said he would send troops to Afghanistan during the campaign. Since then, the situation on the ground has changed and it has become patently obvious that our mission there is a lost cause. The highest ranking State Department official in the country begged Obama not to waste the troops and money on this fiasco. Yet, in the face of evidence he didn't have during the campaign that this was a doomed exercise, Obama stuck with a foolish consistency.

Danny,

Oh yeah, I'm seeing lots of "grown up people" on this thread.

Grown up people who declare themselves progressives yet turn around and find a way to support a war that the great majority of the American people reject. Grown up people who take the word of a politician as if it is the word of God, and repeat his talking points as if it came out of their own heads.

It's always disturbing to watch the "Obama is God and can do no wrong" crowd sing kumbaya with the "Bomb them to hell" crowd, but then, that's all this blog has become.

Despicable.

@An Observer

ETA, seeing your second post, the problem here is the reality of the two party system. I have no problem with you disagreeing with Obama on afpak, I have no problem with across the line pacifists either. I think the world needs more of them. If there was a party I might vote for it.

And here lies the problem: in a two party system across the line pacifists will never have a home, especially in a country with the global role that america has, because such a party would always be unelectable.

As things stand, the democratic party is the party in the two party system of progressive domestic policy and foreign policy moderation.

My problem is when people defects because of any one policy issue, because the other issues are to important, and in a two party system when you defect the one alternative you are always enabling the other alternative. That is unacceptable from my pow.

The solution is not to be angry at other democrats for disagreeing or disilusion with the lack of representation (it is unavoidable in a twoparty system) to work towards a multiparty, representational system. I know, it feels it will never happen. But in reality at this particular time more people than ever are probably receptible to such a pitch than at any time in recent history.

The cracks in the republican coalition is apparent: the libertarians, the moderates and the religious crazies are getting along worse then ever. Framing the pitch as the freedom for libertarians to vote for a party without the kooks, for the kooks and the bluedogs a socially conservative party with economic compassion and that cares about global warming, for pacifists an actual party that represents their position I think there are actually quite many buyers today.

Grown up people who declare themselves progressives yet turn around and find a way to support a war that the great majority of the American people reject. Grown up people who take the word of a politician as if it is the word of God, and repeat his talking points as if it came out of their own heads.

Yep, I've been railing against the pseudo-progs on this blog for months, and the one thing that has become clear is that they will not be happy until they have as much blood on their hands as the wingnuts do.

Despicable.

@An Observer

"Oh yeah, I'm seeing lots of "grown up people" on this thread.

Grown up people who declare themselves progressives yet turn around and find a way to support a war that the great majority of the American people reject. Grown up people who take the word of a politician as if it is the word of God, and repeat his talking points as if it came out of their own heads."

Well then. I've put quite a lot of time into honestly laying out my reasons for my position (albeit with the courtesy you earned by how you expressed yourself in your very first post).

But now that I see that you will persist with the namecalling, the "true scotsman" arguments (as if you could not be "progressive" and support some military intervention, and your other baseless accussations without ever being bothered with grounding them in actual reality...

It's time for you to put your money where your mouth is.

If you accuse me of being a fanboy, you show me where and how.

If you accuse me of parroting talking points you show me where and how.

If you have convinced yourselves that anything that i said w/r to afpak is in any way comparable to the bush crowds despicable lies and warmongering over iraq it is time to show where and how.

Otherwise: shut up & fuck off.

The speech is NOT necessary as many of you point out but to me it is. I would like to know if the president has a plan for the war. As a US citizen, I would like to be included in the matters of the country. True, he is the commander in chief & hence why the orders to the generals have already been given in private, the State Dept. has talked w/ Karzai & Obama w/ other world leaders. Its time HE talks to the people. Oval office or not, it doesn't matter.This isn't Iraq or Vietnam. This is Afghanistan. A battlefield between allies & insurgents. Home base to the people who struck our homeland on Sept. 11. I'll stand behind my commander in chief & his forces as it once use to be in this country during a time of war.

The speech is NOT necessary as many of you point out but to me it is. I would like to know if the president has a plan for the war. As a US citizen, I would like to be included in the matters of the country. True, he is the commander in chief & hence why the orders to the generals have already been given in private, the State Dept. has talked w/ Karzai & Obama w/ other world leaders. Its time HE talks to the people. Oval office or not, it doesn't matter.This isn't Iraq or Vietnam. This is Afghanistan. A battlefield between allies & insurgents. Home base to the people who struck our homeland on Sept. 11. I'll stand behind my commander in chief & his forces as it once use to be in this country during a time of war.
christmas gifts

Wow, I was gonna leave my two cents here but you people are crazy.

Late to the thread, but I was listening to NPR this morning, and Steve Inskeep said during the intro that we'd hear reactions to Obama's speech. I mentally added "from Republicans," and sure enough, Inskeep went on to name two Republican Senators, including noted [strike]military expert[/strike] chickenhawk Saxby Chambliss.

Nice.

Danny:
"Good, progressive, incremental change for every citizen of the world is what makes the world a better place"

I'm sorry, but when has this ever happened in the history of the world? What makes you think it could in the future--especially a future sure to be marked by environmental collapse?

Sure, average standards of living in the western world rose enormously over the twentieth century. But the neocolonialism that western capitalism required created disaster after disaster for the rest of the world.

I like the idea that it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. But I don't see a whole lot of wealth creation throughout history that hasn't meant oppressing someone, somewhere.

I don't know what the f*** to think about Afghanistan, by the way. I am not going to pontificate about the actual facts and threats and risks here because I just don't know enough.

But I do know that the readiness of the pro-war crowd here to veer off into passionate intensity worries me more than the same phenomenon among the anti-war commentators. Pro-war emotionalism looks a lot to me like 2003.

Everyone her, for or against Obama seems to have passionate feelings, I would ask them 'what would you do'. The president was left with no good options, the war had been neglected for 8 years in the Cheney rush for Iraq's oil. This is another Bush/Cheney mess for Obama to clear up in the best way he can, no one should think that he takes any pleasure in it.

Another Dem president finds the wrong cause to look tough on, in order to appease the warmongers who want Mars in the Oval office.

Sigh.

One term president.

Presidents seem to focus most of their real energy on foreign affairs once they get into office. It's probably more rewarding for them, especially at that level. Domestic matters are something that congress and governors attend to.

Except that our domestic needs are so dire right now. I was hoping that Obama would be a transformational president at home, but like so many other people I've become disillusioned. Not so much that I won't vote for him again, at least as of now, but I won't be sending in any more of my money to Dems.

Oh, and this war is a fool's errand.

To those, like Joel, that seem to think there is no cooperation between Pakistan and Al-Qaeda, I would only point out that there was a well-documented connection between the ISI and Al-Qaeda around 9/11.

June 1993-October 1994: 9/11 Funder Saeed Sheikh Links with Al-Qaeda

"Saeed Sheikh, a brilliant British student at the London School of Economics, drops out of school and moves to his homeland of Pakistan. He had been radicalized by a trip to Bosnia earlier in the year (see April 1993). Two months later, he begins training in Afghanistan at camps run by al-Qaeda and the Pakistani ISI. By mid-1994, he has become an instructor. In June 1994, he begins kidnapping Western tourists in India. In October 1994, he is captured after kidnapping three Britons and an American, and is put in an Indian maximum-security prison, where he remain for five years. The ISI pays a lawyer to defend him. [Los Angeles Times, 2/9/2002; Daily Mail, 7/16/2002; Vanity Fair, 8/2002] His supervisor is Ijaz Shah, an ISI officer. [Times of India, 3/12/2002; Guardian, 7/16/2002]"

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0693saeed#a0693saeed

While I disagree with Obama's strategy, and would like all our troops home, I realize that he supported an increase in troops when I voted for him.

The problem with Greenwald's quote about whether or not a promise matters - it only matters in the context of who you voted for. If I voted for Obama and thought he wasn't going to do those things, then I'm just an idiot. Unfortunately, in the US, you have to take the good with the bad, and the reality is that the Dems aren't anywhere close to a progressive party.

@rabbit

"I'm sorry, but when has [good incremental change for every citizen of the world] ever happened in the history of the world? What makes you think it could in the future--especially a future sure to be marked by environmental collapse?"

I am not sure if I read you correctly. Is your question when one good, incremental change happened to every citizen of the world at once - then the answer is trivially "never".

Really, I just think that believing in incremental, progressive change is what it means to be a "progressive". I guess if you wan't it but don't really believe it will happen you might be a pessimist progressive.

Personally, I think history is full of examples of good, incremental change. Pretty much the totality of what we have in the modern welfare state in term of social security nets and so forth. Voting rights. Voting rights for all citizens. Increasing religious, racial, gender and sexual tolerance and equality. And very encouraging: decreasing global poverty.

"Sure, average standards of living in the western world rose enormously over the twentieth century. But the neocolonialism that western capitalism required created disaster after disaster for the rest of the world."

That is true, but I think (I hope) it is becoming apparent that this is in fact the lingering consequences of colonialism and that this situation eventually will change, and that it is already changing. China and India are the prime examples.

It's hard for the "western world" to hold the rest down for our own gain if we are equal partners of equal strength.

I truly believe that fewer people living under the definition of poverty is something to be happy about and that is what we are seing.

In a matter of years, two non-western countries that were recently the most impoverished in the world will be among the leading if not the top two economies in the world.

"I like the idea that it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. But I don't see a whole lot of wealth creation throughout history that hasn't meant oppressing someone, somewhere."

If wealth truly is a zero sum game then we can either all give up either on fighting poverty and protect our own assess or on expecting living standards even close to an impoverished person today living in a modern welfare state. I guess that is a choice we have to make when it is apparent that further growth cannot be sustained. I prefer first working to make growth sustainable, as well as distributing the growth.

"But I do know that the readiness of the pro-war crowd here to veer off into passionate intensity worries me more than the same phenomenon among the anti-war commentators. Pro-war emotionalism looks a lot to me like 2003."

But are you thinking about me here, or about who? I'm sorry, but I can't see myself having gone off on no "America hell yeah, let's rename the Burka the Freedom tent, and btw fuck the french" rant.. Not anyone else either, but I may have missed a post or two, sure.

I get pissed when people I do not agree with are not being courteous, or does not make their case in a constructive way mindful of other viewpoints. It clogs the airwaves and leads to ignorance - exactly the sins of the prowar crowd of 2002. I also personally have a problem with the people who get so dissillusioned when one of their issues gets the short end of the stick in a two party system that they turn out or threaten to go to the other team.

There's one fat reason for that and it is spelled Nader for president 2000 and the following eight hellish years.

In some important respects our involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan can be viewed as a police action, not war.

We are trying to cripple a criminal enterprise run by international terrorists before they install a puppet head of Afghanistan and turn the country back into a safe haven for terrorists. We are trying to end the Taliban's and al Qaeda's ability to pay for their operations by destroying their drug crops, rooting out corruption, preventing the transfer of highly toxic chemicals and weapons into the wrong hands, starting legitimate industries.

We are trying to take back towns and neighborhoods controlled by organized crime so that legitimately elected officials can control the security, justice, education and economic systems.

The opposition is an extremely dangerous, diverse group of murderous thugs with an extreme and hateful point of view. This isn't democracy vs. communism or facism, it's the rule of law vs. crime.

Keep in mind our response is on two tracks -- engagement and confrontation. USAID is out there in the forefront trying to re-build civil society as the criminals are tracked down and brought to justice. The fact that confrontation is being done by solders, mostly US, shouldn't obscure that they are fulfilling many of the responsibilities of a very large police action. Progressives don't object to the existence of a police force. Who else could do something on this scale but the military?

Progressives should not try to force an automatic, anti-war stance onto a complex situation that, regardless of our view of war and peace, must be resolved once and for all. Not just for the US but for all countries. The US, Britain, Spain, Indonesia, India have all seen first hand what evil these terrorists perpetrate.

Any responsible alternative to what Obama has proposed needs to be accompanied by a detailed explanation as to why it will work better. We can't just kick the can down the road for the next president.

When I speak of Afghanistan I will pronounce is as
AfPAKISTAN. This is about Paskistan. I think of this stragedty as dealing with Paskistan through the side door of Afghanistan. With the new troops holding down and pusching back on one side of the border and the CIA (5th branch of the Army) on the other side, which we can not admit too.
I support this presidents decisions, that's why I donated, volunteer'd for and continue to support him.

Lost in our discussion about Afghanistan is the possibility that we

helped create the violent extremism in that country during the

Soviet occupation. The assumption is that the locals turned out the

evil Soviets.

The reality is that we are trying to quell the very phenomenon we helped create, with our weapons, tactics, and monies.

Who's to say that other countries aren't secretly supporting the

Taleban, echoing our own strategy during the 1980s?

We fool ourselves to think it's only a bunch of locals who hate us in Afghanistan.

My guess? The war will drag on for another 5 years, at which point domestic chaos will force us to turn our attention state side, leaving Afghanistan to the wolves.

Jesus is this depressing.

Why do you people even call yourselves progressives when you are every bit as much dishonest warmongers as the worst Bush fanboys? Do you even have any idea just how much you sound like the creeps who backed Bush to the hilt before the Iraq war, with the same specious arguments?

It's just distressing to see the "We are going into Afghanistan to stop the nuclear threat in Pakistan" argument repeated by so-called progressives.

In case you forgot, AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN ARE DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. Controlling Afghanistan is NOT the same as controlling Pakistan. Afghanistan has a population of 28M and a GDP of $11.7B; Pakistan has a population of 180M and a GDP of $164B. So Pakistan has 6.4 times as many people as Afghanistan, and 14 times as large an economy. Afghanistan is a much, much poorer country per capita. It is far, far more primitive in its ability to wage or support any kind of war -- even when the Taliban controlled the country, it had its hands full suppressing internal opposition. Al Qaeda itself has always been a paltry military force, capable only of terrorism on a mostly very small scale basis. In contrast, the Pakistani military force is the sixth largest in the world -- over 1.5M troops. How in this scenario is controlling Afghanistan going to affect Pakistan's fate, and the fate of its nuclear arsenal? It is absurd to think that it is the situation in Afghanistan that's going to tip the balance in Pakistan. What are the Taliban going to do, come over the mountains on their camels and take over Islamabad?

But here you and other Obama fanboys are, repeating Obama's "mushroom cloud" threat with all the eagerness of a Bush fanboy back in the heady days in the run-up to the Iraq war.

I repeat my earlier point: even the always bellicose American people have turned decisively against the war in Afghanistan. And yet it is the progressives here who are finding arguments, desperate in the extreme, to support the war. The new Obama progressive is now, officially, the worst warmongers in America.

Who would have thought a year ago that that is where the progressive movement would find itself?

Pathetic and demoralizing.

I once thought that the problem in American politics was that the Democrats refused to act like progressives. I now realize that the problem is far deeper: progressives themselves refuse to act like progressives.

I see no recovery from this profound defect in our politics.

"The message was very clear - our Military leaders wanted troops - they got them -faster than they asked for. The onus is on them now. Obama has upped the ante. Victory or defeat is on McChrsytal and Petraes - it's their burden now. They have 18 months to turn it around, but the message is very clear - we're leaving - whether our Military likes or or not, or whether they can turn it around or not. Open ended military industrial complex just got their termination papers. And judging by some of the "former military" commentators on TV they don't like it." - Cheryl.

I agree that is one of many paths Obama can take and I hope you are right.

Truth is, Obama has left himself a lot of options, which is probably a smart move. Not only has he lit a fire under the generals, he has also lit a bonfire under Karzai's ass. I hope that Obama (or a high rep.) has had a true "coming to God" moment with Karzai and told him that he better start hitting some home runs IMMEDIATELY through rapidly building a security force and providing stability and services to the Afghan people. I wouldn't give him a dime unless I knew exactly where it was going. Better to provide regional support as that is how the country is wired.

It's time to find out how badly the Afghan people want a secular society. If it's really not that important to them, then let the Taliban take over. Numerous reports I've read state that the Taliban are fighting us over regional issues (i.e., our occupation). This is a civil war between the warlords (Karzai, et al) and the Taliban.

The Pakistan problem isn't going to be solved by our occupation of Afghanistan. On the contrary, our presence fuels their numbers. That issue will only be resolved with true international coordination.

@An Observer

Well I guess this is directed at me though you could not have neither the courtesy nor the honesty to directly address what I wrote. It could appear that you have no good response and prefer to dodge. I am spending my time here against my better judgement.

"Bush fanboys [...] Obama fanboys [...] Obama's "mushroom cloud" threat [...] Bush fanboy"

I asked you to back up your namecalling with some, you know, actual grounding in reality. To put up or shut up as it were. That you persist with the namecalling while pretending it rains does not reflect well upon you, not in my book.

"It's just distressing to see the "We are going into Afghanistan to stop the nuclear threat in Pakistan" argument repeated by so-called progressives."

Your make the mistake of assuming that your personal opinion of what it means to be a "progressive" is universal. As it happens, you'd be hard pressed to present a dictionary definition of the word that accomodates your sophistry.

"In case you forgot, AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN ARE DIFFERENT COUNTRIES."

They sure are. They are separate, neighbouring countries. In addition: they are separate, neighbouring countries both home to the pashtuni people who also happens to be more or less equivalent to the taliban. In addition: the pashtunis in the border areas of afpak do, and always has, freely travel the border and many are de facto as much citizens of the one country as the other.

"Controlling Afghanistan is NOT the same as controlling Pakistan."

Controlling the border pakistani border areas towards afghanistan is (one of the) issue(s) and closely related to controlling afghanistan, as the insurgency on both sides of the border is made up of the same pashtuni talibans, and in many cases by the same people.

"Afghanistan has a population of 28M and a GDP of $11.7B; Pakistan has a population of 180M and a GDP of $164B. So Pakistan has 6.4 times as many people as Afghanistan, and 14 times as large an economy. Afghanistan is a much, much poorer country per capita."

So?

"[Afghanistan] is far, far more primitive in its ability to wage or support any kind of war -- even when the Taliban controlled the country, it had its hands full suppressing internal opposition."

Granted, but afghanistan waging conventional war was never the issue. Therefore, a red herring.

"Al Qaeda itself has always been a paltry military force, capable only of terrorism on a mostly very small scale basis."

This statement is trivially disproven by the fact that 9/11 was perpetrated by Al Qaeda and enabled by the taliban. I am rather baffled that you would even make it.

"In contrast, the Pakistani military force is the sixth largest in the world -- over 1.5M troops. How in this scenario is controlling Afghanistan going to affect Pakistan's fate, and the fate of its nuclear arsenal?

It is absurd to think that it is the situation in Afghanistan that's going to tip the balance in Pakistan. What are the Taliban going to do, come over the mountains on their camels and take over Islamabad?"

As pointed out, Al Qaeda and the talibans blew up the former president of pakistan (and at the time leading presidential contender), in public, in an armored car, surrounded by her supporters. This was two years ago. You seem to assert (by comedy rather than coherent argument I might add) that an internal force that is willing and able to blow up heads of state and has an established presence in the military and security forces constitutes no threat to the stability of the country. That lacks... persuasiveness.

In addition, recent african history, just for a start, is full of examples where shared crossborder conflicts with shared ethnicities destabilizes neighbouring nations. So your argument seem to boil down to: "they ride camels. So there."

"I repeat my earlier point: even the always bellicose American people have turned decisively against the war in Afghanistan."

I am not quite sure that is actually true. I seem to recall polling just before Obamas speech that a majority supported sending more troops. Half of the democrats I would guess, and pretty much all the republicans. On the other hand, a decisive majority seems to dissaprove of Obamas handling of the war. Half of the democrats (on the merits) and all of the republicans (because it's Obama) I would guess. Those two things are not equivalent though.

In any case it is irrelevant. You are supporting your argument with opinion polls, without bothering to tell us why you think opinion polls should be a factor. If a rasmussen poll says a majority thinks creationism should be taught in school, does that strengthen or weaken my argument why it is detrimental to the future state of science in the united states?

"And yet it is the progressives here who are finding arguments, desperate in the extreme, to support the war. The new Obama progressive is now, officially, the worst warmongers in America."

"Desperate in the extreme" is either slander, poetry or amateur psychology. It is your fucking opinion, and fucking irrelevant. In the future you would be wise to substitute that with actual reading skills and the intellectual honesty of adressing the arguments of the person you disagree with.

The part about Obama progressives being the worst warmongers in america is provably untrue. They are still the same people they were yesterday: Neocons and republicans in general and the Cheney family (possibly minus the lesbian daughter) in particular.

"Who would have thought a year ago that that is where the progressive movement would find itself?"

Disregarding your creative fiction of my position, had you watched the first televised debate between George Bush and John Kerry the autumn 2004 and then kept track of the positions on afghanistan of the democratic candidates in 2008 you should not be suprised. This has been their position all along: to scale down Iraq and scale up Afghanistan. You are arguing from ignorance.

"I once thought that the problem in American politics was that the Democrats refused to act like progressives. I now realize that the problem is far deeper: progressives themselves refuse to act like progressives."

Once again: you are confusing the word "progressive" with "across the board pacifist". They are not equivalent. It is possible to be progressive and an across the board pacifist. It is possible to be progressive and not across the board pacifist. Please get it straight. It's fucking annoying.

...
["]Cthulhu for President["]
Why settle for the lesser evil?
Because otherwise you will get the greater evil. That's the way it is. Cthulhu will never get elected, but Sarah Palin might if you prigs stay home or vote for some wonderful and unelectable idol. It already happened in 2000, and look what shit came forth.

Danny,

It is truly a sorry spectacle to see someone like you who claims to be a progressive find a way of backing Obama's major escalation of the Afghanistan war.

I'm amazed that you remain bound and determined to argue that we need to wage a war in Afghanistan because of the nuclear threat in Pakistan.

Your argument? It boils down to this: that al Qaeda can engage in terrorism such as the assassination of Bhutto. And you claim it as an established fact that it was al Qaeda and the Taliban behind it.

The thing of it is, Bhutto was not a friend of the powers in Pakistan -- she was its die hard foe. It was the government of Pakistan itself that wants to claim that al Qaeda and the Taliban was behind the assassination, lest it be held responsible. Neither Bhutto's family nor her party, the PPP believes the government's claim. See Wikipedia on the point:

The government of Pakistan claimed Baitullah Mehsud was the mastermind behind the assassination.[100] Lashkar i Jhangvi, a Muslim extremist organization affiliated with al-Qaeda that also attempted in 1999 to assassinate former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, is alleged to have been responsible for the killing of the 54-year-old Bhutto along with approximately 20 bystanders, however this is vigorously disputed by the Bhutto family, by the PPP that Bhutto had headed and by Baitullah Mehsud.[101] On 3 January 2008, President Musharraf officially denied participating in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto as well as failing to provide her proper security.[102]

How odd that you, a "progressive", buy completely into the government's argument without any reservation -- now that it seems to be required for your Obama fanboyism.

Of course, even if al Qaeda and the Taliban were behind it, how on earth does that imply that we should be fighting a war in distant Afghanistan? The Bhutto assassination took place while the Taliban was in disarray in Afghanistan; the Taliban leader who was claimed to be responsible was situated in Pakistan.

And, suffice it to say, terrorism whose target is an opposition leader to the current government is not exactly powerful evidence that the terrorists have it in their power to bring down that government, is it? It's one thing for the government to look the other way while terrorists kill a thorn in their side, quite another for the terrorists to kill a major figure in the government itself.

And you simply fail to come to terms with the relative insignificance of Afghanistan in this scenario, given both the smallness of its resources compared to Pakistan, and the remoteness of Taliban forces in Afghanistan from the population centers of Pakistan. Perhaps the Taliban can engage in some terrorism against the government that is actually effective, though there's zero proof of that. But if so, it's unlikely in the extreme that anything in Afghanistan is going to play a crucial role -- that is, a role that could not have been played by forces located entirely within Pakistan. And it's a long, long way even from terrorism that strikes effectively at a particular government target to a takeover of the government itself.

You are simply playing the same 6 degrees of separation game that the Bush fanboys played in the run-up to the Iraq war. Put a dozen dominos in a row, have the last one land on the nuclear button, and voila! we have a threat we cannot ignore and must devote endless American blood and treasure to prevent.

And as to the point that there have been other Democrats (e.g., Kerry) who have supported escalation in Afghanistan, I can only say that I'm amazed this might be used as an argument by a progressive.

I had thought honest-to-God progressives had long understood that Democrats in Congress are often, maybe typically, deeply un-progressive.

Danny, I'm sorry to say, but you're just gone.

Can you return your Progressive badge on the way out?

An Observer, there isn't a lot in Afghanistan per se but being there is the only way to press down on the Pakistan border. There is real danger there. It's af-pak as a whole.

"Your argument? It boils down to this: that al Qaeda can engage in terrorism such as the assassination of Bhutto. And you claim it as an established fact that it was al Qaeda and the Taliban behind it.

The thing of it is, Bhutto was not a friend of the powers in Pakistan -- she was its die hard foe. It was the government of Pakistan itself that wants to claim that al Qaeda and the Taliban was behind the assassination, lest it be held responsible. Neither Bhutto's family nor her party, the PPP believes the government's claim."

You are correct in that part of my argument is that Al Qaeda and the taliban (as well as other islamist extremist groups) are a real threat to the internal stability of Pakistan.

With regard to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto: Al Qaeda claimed it. The former government (of Musharraf) considered it proven that they committed the act, and claimed they collaborated with Baitullah Mehsud, a taliban commander. As far as I know the PPP (who are currently the government) denied the involvment of Mehsud specifically, on the grounds that Mehsud himself denied involvement.

In the end, it makes no big difference for my argument, since the ability of the taliban and Al Qaeda to commit terrorism acts in Pakistan on a daily basis is well established (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Pakistan#2009). The list of attacks for 2009 alone is 11 pages long (although for full disclosure a minority of the listed incidents I would not really characterize as terrorism but rather insurgency). Go figure.

Some choice picks from the latest three months:

* October 22 A serving Army brigadier, Moinuddin Ahmad, and his driver were gunned down in Islamabad early on Thursday morning while his gunman was critically wounded. Two motorcyclists intercepted his official jeep in Sector G-11/1 and sprayed it with automatic fire. The broad daylight assassination comes on the heels of the Islamic University bombing barely 48 hours earlier.
* October 23 Eight persons, including two PAF security personnel, were killed and 17 others sustained injuries when a suicide bomber exploded himself at a police check-post on the GT Road near the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC), Kamra, on Friday morning.
* November 2 At least 35 people were killed and 65 others injured when a suicide bomber blew himself up outside a branch of the National Bank of Pakistan in Rawalpindi on Monday.
* November 6 In a third incident of its kind in Islamabad, gunmen injured an army brigadier and his driver in Islamabad on Friday, as they opened fire on their vehicle. Brigadier Sohail and his driver came under attack by unknown assailants in the I-8/4 sector of the capital
* November 17 At least one person was killed and five others injured, including Deputy Inspector General (DIG), Nizam Shahid Durrani in a blast in Quetta. The bomb blast occurred outside the police inspector's office on Spini Road.
* December 2 An attack by a suicide bomber, on the entrance to Pakistan's navy headquarters in Islamabad, has resulted in the death of one security officer. Two other security officers have been wounded and are said to be in a critical condition. As were two civilians, including a six-year old boy who is known to be in a critical state.

"How odd that you, a "progressive", buy completely into the government's argument without any reservation"

This is provably false. Upthread I specifically voice my very real doubts that the strategy will succeed in stabilizing afganisthan with the number of troops available, and I do so at some length. But you can't be bothered to read nor are you interested in honest debate, are you?

"Of course, even if al Qaeda and the Taliban were behind it, how on earth does that imply that we should be fighting a war in distant Afghanistan? The Bhutto assassination took place while the Taliban was in disarray in Afghanistan; the Taliban leader who was claimed to be responsible was situated in Pakistan."

This is pretty fucking disingenous. Afghanistan may be "distant" from the united states, it is anything but distant from Pakistan. As pointed out already, the talibans that commit the terrorrist acts in pakistan are the same ethnic pashtuns as in afghanistan, they often belong to the same tribes and families, they are often the same people, having crossed the border, and they are allied with the same Al Qaeda in exactly the same fucking way as they were when we originally invaded Afghanistan.

The problem off course is that while it obviously would be nicer if we could just let our troops follow them into Pakistan that particular option is not really available to us. They cross the border to Pakistan to hide from us and they cross the border to Afghanistan to hide from the Pakistany army. So the option that is available to us is fighting them on the Afghani side of the border, hunting them with predator drones on the Pakistani side and pressure the Pakistani government to root them out of their army and security service, and to hunt them on the Phakistani side of the border.

Those are the options available if one believes at all that the taliban and Al Qaeda should be fought in afpak at all. Which, of course, you don't. That's ok. You're entitled to your opinion.

"And, suffice it to say, terrorism whose target is an opposition leader to the current government is not exactly powerful evidence that the terrorists have it in their power to bring down that government, is it?"

Yes it is. Power to take down leading political figures and to commit acts of terror in the nations capital over and over again, murdering high members of the countries armed forces again and again etc is a clear threat to the stability of a country. It really ought to be fucking obvious.

"It's one thing for the government to look the other way while terrorists kill a thorn in their side, quite another for the terrorists to kill a major figure in the government itself."

You imply that the Musharraf government willingly allowed the assassination of Bhutto, or something like that, which is pure speculation and unsupported. The PPP has been in power a while now, if that were the case we would likely have heard something by now.

If you take some time to read through my link you'll find that three army brigadiers have been shot to death in Islamabad this year and that yesterday a suicide bomber blew himself up on the steps of the navy headquarters in Islamabad. Threat to the internal security or no threat?

"And you simply fail to come to terms with the relative insignificance of Afghanistan in this scenario, given both the smallness of its resources compared to Pakistan"

Because it is relevant, or rather, you have failed miserably in showing why it is relevant.

"and the remoteness of Taliban forces in Afghanistan from the population centers of Pakistan. Perhaps the Taliban can engage in some terrorism against the government that is actually effective, though there's zero proof of that."

What is your definition of "effective"? Because it seems to me to be proven that there is no fucking "perhaps" here.

"But if so, it's unlikely in the extreme that anything in Afghanistan is going to play a crucial role -- that is, a role that could not have been played by forces located entirely within Pakistan."

Well yes. Apart from the fact that there is no possibility whatsoever to put any troops in Pakistan and that we would still have to control the eastern region of Afghanistan because Al Qaeda and the taliban would just move right across the border as they already did in the other direction you are absolutely right. But magical thinking solves few real world problems.

"And it's a long, long way even from terrorism that strikes effectively at a particular government target to a takeover of the government itself."

Says who? You? What is your criteria for determining when a government takeover is imminent. What is your criteria for determining when a descent into open civil war and failed statehood is imminent? It would be nice to hear. And when we conclude that your criteria has been met, what is your prefered course of action?

"You are simply playing the same 6 degrees of separation game that the Bush fanboys played in the run-up to the Iraq war. Put a dozen dominos in a row, have the last one land on the nuclear button, and voila! we have a threat we cannot ignore and must devote endless American blood and treasure to prevent."

I have already written this once upthread, so it's tiresome to have to do it again because you cannot be bothered to read, and respond.

What Bush and his cronies did in the leadup to the Iraq war was pretend that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and Iraq was not, that Al Qaeda was in Iraq and Al Qaeda was not, that Iraq had access to nuclear weapons and Iraq had not. Well 9/11 was planned and organised from Afghanistan, Al Qaeda were in Afghanistan and now they are in Pakistan, and Phakistan does have nuclear weapons.

See the difference? Bush et al straight up lied the american public into the wrong war. You are accusing all people that come to different conclusion about what to do about the the people that actually attacked us of being on that same level. Thats a fucking huge insult in my book.

"And as to the point that there have been other Democrats (e.g., Kerry) who have supported escalation in Afghanistan, I can only say that I'm amazed this might be used as an argument by a progressive."

So your position is that you are surprised and depressed when progressive people support the clearly declared policy of the last two presidential candidates of the progressive party, when it comes time to implement it. And then you are amazed when they are willing to explain to you why. How does that work for you, living a life of endless surprises and letdowns?

"I had thought honest-to-God progressives had long understood that Democrats in Congress are often, maybe typically, deeply un-progressive."

Yeah, the last two presidential candidates that is. Whatever floats your boat mate.

First time i don't like President Obama's speech...honestly..