Obama's Wrong Turn in Afghanistan

[Better Believe It]

Obama's Wrong Turn in Afghanistan
by John Nichols
The Nation
July 19, 2008

Running for president is a perilous endeavor. Candidates make mistakes.

And Barack Obama is making a serious mistake this weekend.

As he tours Afghanistan, the senator from Illinois says he is "more interested in listening than doing a lot of talking."

That would be good if it were the case.

Unfortunately, Obama is busy making promises.


Please read the entire article at:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/337748

[golddigger]

1. Thanks for your concern. It's really important.

[jumptheshadow]

32. What a tired way of trying to stop any intelligent discourse

The "concern" thing really sounds childish at this point, especially when it's used to block any insightful or intelligent discussion about issues.

[LWolf]

47. It sounds childish because it IS childish. nt

[golddigger]

50. You might want to read what I said again. It's really important!!!

Meaning his concern is valid.

[caledesi]

33. Yes, thank you for your concern. NT

[jobycom]

38. Thanks for a tired cliche that says nothing but makes you feel powerful.

[Occam Bandage]

2. Obama has always--*always*--been in favor of fulfilling Bush's broken promises to Afghanistan.

The Afghan government wants us there, the Afghan people want us there, and our NATO allies want us there. "US OUT OF AFGHANISTAN" is reflexive pacifism, and if there is one thing that Obama is not, it is reflexive.

[jody]

Why is it pacifism to retreat from a country that has defeated invaders in recent history?

Perhaps rather than call it pacifism one should say prudent.

[Occam Bandage]

5. Because we, alongside the Afghans, are the ones defeating the invaders at the moment.

[jody]

10. Who are the invaders we are defeating? I thought the Taliban were predominantly Pashtuns from

southern Afghanistan and western Pakistan.

Do you have some other invaders in mind?

[Occam Bandage]

13. They are indeed. They are without the support of the Afghan people, and operate from foreign soil.

They are bandits and invaders, and Afghanistan has proven repeatedly that it will resist them if given the option and the support necessary.

[jody]

16. I believe the Pashtuns number about 12 million in Afghanistan so invaders is not the proper word to

describe them.

That's my only point.

Perhaps the phrase civil war is more appropriate than calling the Taliban or Pashtuns invaders in their own country.

[Occam Bandage]

20. They are a military operating from foreign soil, with the aim of hostile takeover of an unwilling

people. You can call them whatever you like, but in the dynamics of guerilla war, they are the invading army so long as we have the money and resources available to provide the Afghan people the ability to resist.

[jody]

26. You really need to get your terms correct. Pashtuns are native to Afghanistan and the largest ethnic

group at 42% followed by the Tajik at 27%. It makes no sense to call them "invaders" in the country in which they are the largest ethnic group.

The major invaders in Afghanistan today are the U.S. and its allies.

Whether we should be there and which side to support is another issue.

My personal position is fight until the Taliban agree to abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Taliban are destroyed.

The U.S. had ties to the Taliban during the Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush administrations.

Dubya gave the Taliban a $43 million grant for fighting opium production.

Things change. :shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

28. I am--and have consistently been--referring to the Taliban, not the Pashtun people.

They are not the same thing, despite your attempt to conflate them. The Taliban is composed largely of Pashtun. The Pashtun people are not generally supportive of the Taliban. We are not invaders; we are there at the behest of the Afghan government, under the NATO flag, and with the support of the Afghan people. Until the fall of Kabul, we were invaders sanctioned by international law; we are no longer.

The United States did indeed "have ties to" the Taliban during their reign. We have ties with most every government on Earth. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything else.

[jody]

34. "The overwhelming majority of Taliban movement were ethnic Pashtuns from southern Afghanistan and

western Pakistan".

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

[High Plains]

51. Ha ha ha. Good one!

Calling the Taliban the invaders, when we sent our armies half way around the planet to, er, invade.

[The_Casual_Observer]

14. A escalation of the war in Afghanistan & you are right behind him

waving a flag & chanting ruh roh. Obama's idea of "change" is fighting a war in Afghanistan instead of Iraq.

[jefferson_dem]

15. What position did your Hillary take on Afghanistan during the primaries?

Hmmmm...

Thanks for your concern about Barack though. It means so much.

[The_Casual_Observer]

18. Who cares? It's about all your idol now. Blaming Clinton isn't going to

help you on this shit. You going to sign up & go help him out over there in Kabul?

[jefferson_dem]

21. LOL!

Let it go, bro. Let it go.

[The_Casual_Observer]

22. Give me five Bro'

Or better yet, a thumbs-over soul brother handshake.

[Occam Bandage]

17. I was always in favor of rebuilding Afghanistan so long as its people want us to. I still am.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Connie_Corleone]

3. Maybe John Nichols should've paid more attention to what Obama has been saying for over a year.

Focusing attention on Afghanistan has always been part of Obama's foreign policy.

Anyone acting all surprised about this wasn't paying attention during the primaries.

[anonymous171]

4. lol you again

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[high density]

7. Better Believe It...

You are not very transparent.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Windy]

9. I'm sorry, but Afghanistan and Pakistan are the right locations to place resources to

protect this country. I think Mr. Nichols should read about the Taliban and their tactics in Afghanistan and remember those that were killed on 9/11. Action was needed after the attack. The Iraq war was NOT. As a result of Iraq, Afghanistan is crumbling, Al Queda has moved to Pakistan and this country is probably in more peril than it ever was before, not to mention Europe and our other allies.

To fail to recognize legitimate threats to this nation is to bury your head in the sand.
We need diplomacy and aid in Afghanistan to keep the Taliban from coming back into power as well as international forces. The stability of this region is a serious matter. International diplomacy is also necessary in the greater middle east as well as a serious effort between Isreal and Palestine that has been seriously lacking. This is not a simple task. It never was and it has been made much harder by Bush and his horrendous mistakes and imperialism.

Dennis Kucinich had his head in the clouds. That is why he had NO chance of winning the nomination, much less the general election. Obama is tackling this monumental task with intelligence. I find it terribly distressing that the Nation is trying to undermine his efforts. Mr. Nichols needs to get out more and do a bit of world traveling.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Peacetrain]

12. Of all the places on the planet,

that engaged in the mistreatment of women, Afghanistan and the taliban had and has to rank at the top. Obama has always, always been for defanging al qaeda and the taliban. The taliban encouraged the al qaeda movement and gave it refuge. Obama is stating what he has always stated.

[snooper2]

46. Don't forget the Taliban raping little boys..

Another one of their common sick desires...

:puke:





GOBAMA!

[Peacetrain]

49. Those are some incredibly sick people..

[Inuca]

23. Sorry for Mr. Nichols

but it is a completely stupid article. It's almost like he arguing that Obama should just go there and sit, be nice, and not open his mouth. Sending more troops to Afghanistan has been advocated by Obama and other dems for quite a while, nothing new there. And he takes the quote:

"Obama promised us that if he becomes a president in the future, he will support and help Afghanistan not only in its security sector but also in reconstruction, development and economic sector

where the actual (and 100% correct) emphasis is on support for reconstruction, etc., and makes it sound like Obama has turned into a warmonger. Disappointing.

[Duder]

24. Obama in Afghanistan

Obama joined Karzai for a “working lunch,” marking the first meeting for the Afghan president and the presumptive Democratic nominee. Obama’s colleagues in the congressional delegation visiting Afghanistan, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), were also at the lunch, said Humayun Hamidzada, Karzai’s chief spokesman. Hamidzada said the nearly two-hour meeting, which was also attended by the heads of Afghanistan’s ministries of defense, foreign affairs and Karzai’s national security adviser, was “positive” and “friendly.”

The politicians discussed a range of topics that included education, health care and the state of the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police force.

[anonymous171]

25. This is what Hitchens was talking about.

"This is something more than a disagreement of emphasis or tactics. When I began work for The Nation over two decades ago, Victor Navasky described the magazine as a debating ground between liberals and radicals, which was, I thought, well judged. In the past few weeks, though, I have come to realize that the magazine itself takes a side in this argument, and is becoming the voice and the echo chamber of those who truly believe that John Ashcroft is a greater menace than Osama bin Laden. "

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20021014/hitchens

And I fucking hate Hitchens and his neocon beliefs.

[Jazzgirl]

27. Uh....riiiiggghhhhttt....Your concern is wearing on your sleeve.

n/t

[Disturbed]

30. Will a US Troop Surge bring Peace & Democracy to

Afghanistan?

[salonghorn70]

29. Obama Is Correct

Obama has rightly determined that a threat to the United States still exists. I strongly support his views on this. As for the Canadians, I wonder what their position would be if 3800 of their citizens had been killed.

[barack the house]

31. I really don't remember in the primary him speaking against Afghanistan...

People are really behaving like he didn't say what he siad all along. It's very peculiar to me.

[my3boyz]

35. Why don't you buzz the hell off. I'm so sick of people posting

negative shit about Obama with false "concern".

[Runcible Spoon]

37. what IS it about people who registered last January?

You all love to tell people to shut the fuck up. I'm trying to figure out what kind of influx came in last January that culminated in a drumbeat of sycophantic blind support for anything any politician does or says. Kinda pathetic.

[my3boyz]

43. I didn't tell anyone one to shut up I told told them to leave the damn board.

If you can't support our nominee and want to post negative shit about him then you are not a democrat and absolutely don't deserve to be on this board. Go find a McCain board. I'm sure they will enjoy the negative shit you all post about Obama.

[Runcible Spoon]

52. I'm sorry, you don't get to tell people what to do or say. Thanks for playing.

and insinuating that I am somehow a McCain lover is so fucking stupid it's laughable. All you're doing is making yourself look incredibly ignorant. Enjoy that.

[Marrah_G]

55. Wow... your post is incredibly disturbing and I would bet you don't even understand why.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[johnaries]

39. An incredibly naive article.

Obama has always said he wanted to "finish the job" in Afghanistan. I agree with him - I've always said the same thing.

[NattPang]

40. Thankfully for me, you are going on Ignore until you are banned.

It will eventually be evident to even DU administrator
that you don't support Senator Barack Obama.

See you never!

[Skip Intro]

42. I knew right away that his/her papers were not in order. And he/she did speak blasphemy.

He/she shall suffer the great might of my ignore feature for his/her insubordination and heresy!

[Marrah_G]

56. He should be sent to a re-education camp until he can be taught to think correctly !!

[jillan]

41. I am really surprised that Mr Nichols wrote this.

I have enjoyed and agreed with many of his writings in the past....

Obama is 100% right on his plans for Afghanistan and Pakistan and I think this trip was a good move on his part.

[mwb970]

44. Sorry, this is dumb.

Kind of a desperate post, no?

[Marrah_G]

45. Afgahnistan is one of the areas I agree with Obama about.

[Bragi]

48. No good will come from this war /NT

[Better Believe It]

53. Obama in Afghanistan: Careful What You Wish For

Obama in Afghanistan: Careful What You Wish For
By Graham Usher
Islamabad, Pakistan
The Nation
July 20, 2008

This is the second in a series of reports from Nation correspondents analyzing the impact of Barack Obama's international fact-finding tour.

Obama also seems to agree with the Afghan regime's diagnosis of the fundamental problem facing their country: it's not corruption or underdevelopment or even bumper opium crops that fuel insurgents and warlords alike, including some of President Hamid Karzai's "allies." The core issue is the existence of Taliban and Al Qaeda sanctuaries on the other side of the Afghan border in Pakistan.

Where Obama says he differs from the Bush Administration is that his presidency would not place "all of America's eggs in the basket" of one man--which, since 9/11, has been Pakistan's ex-military ruler General Pervez Musharraf. On July 15 Obama co-sponsored a Senate bill that, if passed, would triple non-military aid to Pakistan to $15 billion over the next decade. The aim is "to align ourselves with Pakistan and its people," he said. The assumption is a democratic dispensation would be more amenable to American demands.

Obama should be careful what he wishes for. Whatever frustration he feels toward Islamabad's current approach to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the policy reflects Pakistani public sentiment. According to a poll released by the US-based International Republican Institute (IRI) on July 17, 71 percent of Pakistanis support political dialogue with the Taliban and only 9 percent back military force. An IRI poll in February showed 89 percent wanting their government to have no truck with the US "war on terror." Sixty-four percent said America--rather than the Taliban or Al Qaeda--represented the "greatest single threat" to their nation.

Mass attitudes like these explain why any elected Pakistan government would be timorous in dealing with the Taliban. And why nothing would undermine its democratic legitimacy more than a unilateral American action on Pakistani soil.

Please read the entire article at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080804/usher

[zulchzulu]

54. Nichol's Incorrect Assessment about Obama in Afghanistan

I personally run into John Nichols now and then in Madison, where he writes for The Nation and some other efforts. He's a Quaker. He's a pacifist. Unapologetically I might add. He's never going to be for conflict with the military under 99% of circumstances.

He can think that. I would tend to agree with him in most cases.

But for him to say that Obama is wrong by using NATO forces and not the UN misses the actual point of who would be participating.

Granted, as John pointed out, Canada is dropping out. Here's the list of NATO countries and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) forces in Afghanistan:

Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxemburg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Albania
Austria
Azerbaijan
Croatia
Finland
Ireland
Sweden
Switzerland

OK, it's not the entire World, but there is a pretty wide representation.

As for John saying the Obama and McCain strategy is the same with Afghanistan is completely wrong. McCain would put in more brigades in Afghanistan AND put more in Iraq... indefinitely. Obama would pull out of Iraq and join forces with NATO and get something from the billions given to Pakistan to squash the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Guess what. The Taliban and Al Qaeda ARE ASSHOLES. Unless you want to give up your freedom and be converted into a odd 7th century bastardization of Islam, make women have no rights at all, not allow music or dancing and other fucked up ways to live, then the Taliban and Al Qaeda are your cup of tea.

Me? I say squash the mother fuckers. If you want these people knocking on your door and threatening to behead you unless you desist to their will, then you don't understand what an asshole is.

http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm

[Better Believe It]

58. Sounds Like A New And Improved "Coalition of the Willing"

I of course agree that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are assholes, in fact your description is a bit too moderate for me.

I really don't expect the terrorists, Al Qaeda supporters or others, to be knocking on our door to behead us. So I won't be hiding under the bed or running out to buy an AK47 anytime soon. I haven't bought into Bush's "if we don't stop them over there they'll be comin over here" proclamations.

And over the course of many decades we've had countless dictatorial regimes in the world that have embraced Christianity or Islam or no religion at all. And some of those regimes engaged in state sponsored terrorism. We can't invade every nation that's run by a despot or lacks the most fundamental human and democratic rights. And we are in no position to preach about democracy to other nations while our personal rights and freedoms are being taken away at home.

Now that list of nations you posted reminds me a bit of Bush's "Coalition of the Willing" list. I have to wonder how many troops each of the 33 nations in this new coalition are providing. I do know that out of about 70,000 troops, 36,00 of them come from the United States. That strikes a familiar ring!

Canada is dropping out of the coalition. Thanks to the pressure of liberals and progressives in Canada. Think they are on to something?

[zulchzulu]

60. Just leaving Afghanistan at this point is also not acceptable

We blew up what infrastructure there was and have destabilized the region.

Of course I know enough about how we want to put a pipeline through the country and that old conquerors like Marco Polo viewed fighting that region only leading to certain death due to the landscape.

We need to destabilize the Taliban and squash Al Qaeda there with an international coalition and WITH a timetable. And here's this... we need to help provide a pipeline for them to begin to get their economy more diverse than just being a nation that provides heroin.

The Mujahedeen, trained by the CIA, are fighting the Taliban, who protect Al Qaeda and are funded by the Pakistani army. There will definitely need to be a timetable to try to set up a political agreement between the myriads of mercuric factions.

[AZBlue]

57. Why is The Nation so anti-Obama lately?

And why is John Nichols taking the word of Gul Agha Sherzai instead of going directly to Obama for the information??

[Better Believe It]

59. I Don't Think The Nation Is Really Anti-Obama

Many of their writers are critical of some of Obama's policies .... they disagree with him on some issues .... and that will continue before and after Obama is elected President. What else would one expect from progressives?

Unlike many McCain supporters and right-wingnuts, we are independent thinkers who don't need to be told what we must think.

We can think for ourselves and aren't guilty of hero worship or cultism like our right-wing opponents.