Yes I knew of Obama's Afghanistan escalation plans...

[SHRED]

...while he was running for President.

I didn't approve then either.

Does he not understand the thousands of years of history of foreigners trying to dictate how that country should be run and their subsequent disastrous failures?

Are you all ready for many more body bags this summer?

Are you willingly accepting the vast escalation, in billions, of spending of our tax dollars in this effort?
With much of it going again to private contractors?

This will be a long summer.
I am afraid that the needs here at home will be once again overshadowed by a corporate inspired (oil) occupation.

---

[BlooInBloo]

1. blahblahblah... ihateobama... blahblahblah.

[SHRED]

2. On this issue...

...you bet I do.


---

[BlooInBloo]

3. Pakistan is down with it. Afghanistan is down with it. VoteVets is down with it...

And a host of others.

But YOU know better than ALL of them!

:rofl:

blahblahblah... ihateobama... blahblahblah.

[SHRED]

4. yeah...real funny

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[SHRED]

6. From bvar22, with which I concur:

Al Qaeda does NOT belong to ANY country or state.
If we are successful at making it too hot for them in Afghanistan, they simply move to another country in need of money from Saudi Arabia. There are many places on the Globe where their presence will be welcome,or at least tolerated.
We cannot police every single one.
Al Qaeda wil WIN this game.

The only way to defeat Al Qaeda is to deny them funding through International Law Enforcement.
This will necessarily begin with a confrontation with the Saudi Sheiks.

[Kdillard]

9. Interesting. The question is why hasn't this been thought of already and done.

[ProSense]

10. Wow, channeling Kerry

Al Qaeda does NOT belong to ANY country or state....The only way to defeat Al Qaeda is to deny them funding through International Law Enforcement.

Still have to ask:

This will necessarily begin with a confrontation with the Saudi Sheiks.

What kind of confrontation?


Edited to add link

[avaistheone1]

31. Good points.

Hasn't Homeland Security been saying that money is the lifeblood of the terrorists?

[Clio the Leo]

41. and thank you!

This is the first time (and I realize you're quoting someone) I've heard another rational alternative. My ears are open, so's my mind ... but so far all I've been getting is "war is not the answer!!!"

Well DUH!

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

13. NATO is down with it too...Some folks here are pretty casual about letting

our number one enemy off the hook...

[BlooInBloo]

15. And the UN Secretary General...

(not sure why they deleted the post where I said that, but whatever.)

[avaistheone1]

33. Al Quada is in 80 to 100 countries.

Good luck playing cat and mouse.

We will definitely lose this one.

[WinkyDink]

53. That's what the Soviet leaders said.

[bvar22]

67. Afghanistan is FOR it?

Oh, you mean the Mayor of Kabul, Hamid Karzai....
the puppet plutocrat installed by Bush to be the Oil Oligarch of Afghanistan,...is FOR the killing of more unruly tribesmen.

If The US Puppet Mayor of Kabul is FOR it, I immediately question the policy.

[HopeOverFear]

7. *hands you your cookie* *

*pats you on the head* there ya go...

[dflprincess]

8. You have dared to question the great and powerful Obama, Shred

for this you will be mocked - though no one will manage to respond with a well reasoned, thoughtful defense of Obama's actions.

Of course, when it comes to continuing the policy of endless war, I don't see how they could.

[SHRED]

11. Immediately I am called an "Obama hater"

All because in my view, and with historical backing, the Afghanistan escalation spells trouble.

Not one more life is worth losing in another country that poses no threat.

[zulchzulu]

27. Answer the questions in post #26

Let's see what you know about the situation.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

12. Yeah, I am ready for an escalation and for a long-term slog and fully support it.

AQ is still a threat. When they and the Taliban are routed then we can bail...

[SHRED]

14. What are you willing to sacrifice then?

[cliffordu]

16. You.

I'd sacrifice you.

Seriously, if they need a shooter and I could get my eyes done, at 57, I'd go.

Fuck Al Quaeda. I'd put one in Bin Laden in a New York Minute.

Rich prick sending the marginally cognizant to kill....

[dflprincess]

17. It's always easy to say you'd enlist when you know the military would never take you

If the U.S. had any real interest in getting those responsible for 9/11 we might have to confront the Saudis and other friends of Bushco.

[cliffordu]

18. Fuck you. I went once and I'd go again for the right reasons.

Al Quaeda is the right reason.

[dflprincess]

19. According to the BBC Al Qaeda is an invention of the CIA

If you haven't seen it, I'd recommend the BBC’s documentary called “The Power of Nightmares". If you have seen it, watch it again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/4202741.stm

"As the films showed, wherever one looks for this "al-Qaeda" organisation - from the mountains of Afghanistan to the "sleeper cells" in America - the British and Americans are pursuing a fantasy."

[cliffordu]

20. Well, I stand corrected....

:sarcasm:

[dflprincess]

21. I'd trust the BBC over anything the American media has fed us

for the last 8 years.

All I'm saying, is watch the series, then decide. Sorry if suggesting a source for information offends you.

[cliffordu]

23. Not at all - I like the BBC...

Can you really believe the same set of idiotic fuckers that couldn't predict the fall of the Soviet Union or the Tet offensive in 68 or plan the bay of pigs or any one of a dozen other completely FUBAR clusterfucks ACTUALLY invented and control the idea of AQ......

And no one has spilled the fucking secret???

Must be the Bildebergers..

[dflprincess]

24. Watch the DVD then make your decison

It makes more sense than thinking a bunch of idiots living in caves actually prove a threat to the western world

And the invention of Al Qaeda isn't much of a secret - unless a person limits themselves to the American media.

[cliffordu]

28. Hoooookaaaaayyyy -

Why doesn't the Iranaians, or the Turks, or the syrians or whomever out the lie for what it is, then??

It isn't like AQ existing as a boogy man created by the CIA is in ALL thier best interests, now is it???

[Exilednight]

32. I'll believe AQ is a figment of the CIA's imagination as soon as I see black unmarked ...........

helicopters chasing a UFO.

AQ is not a CIA creation. The BBC documentary blurs the line between AQ lead by Osama and the groups that have an ax to grind with the US and grab it because of its anti-US prestige. Some groups believe that using the name gives them instant credibility.

You've watched one too many episodes of the X-Files.

[spoony]

36. It may not be a CIA creation, but it also doesn't have a particular zip code

AQ is entrenched in civilian populations throughout the middle east and the world. There is no way that a military campaign in Afghanistan is going to impact a loose network of independently run groups. Go after their funding, undermine their support, shit like that. Wasting blood and money in the desert isn't going to solve this.

[Exilednight]

40. Have you read Obama's plan? My guess is no, or else you would know ..............

that his plan does not involve sending in more combat troops.

Obama is smart enough to understand that most foreign policy fails due to the fact that we destroy countries and leave.

But if you read Obama's plan then you would know that this his plan involves rebuilding the country and providing infrastructure. It's the old saying of "give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, but teach a man to fish and .........."

[spoony]

44. Uh huh, I suppose the soldiers will be carrying candy canes

This is simply apologising for increasing occupation forces, and mercenary forces. Much of that "infrastructure" will be provided by the sort of wonderful companies that we've come to know and hate under Bush. It's funny to see the rabid militarism coming out of the woodwork on DU lately, though.

[Exilednight]

46. Thanks for answering my question, you've made it painfully obvious that you haven't ..........

read the plan.

[spoony]

49. Let me guess you had that typed up and ready to go

no matter what I replied with. I can't blame you, as cheap personal shots are really all the war cry crowd have going for them.

[Exilednight]

54. It's not a personal attack, it's statement of fact. You're attacking the man without ..............

actually knowing what he wants to do, or how he plans to get it done.

I'm all for dissent, but at least know what you are complaining about.

[spoony]

58. Such bullshit

You keep trying to soften this ongoing war with your deflections and poor psychic imitations. I've made my points. 1. AQ cannot be defeated militarily 2. Humanitarian and diplomatic efforts are undermined by the presence of an increasing occupying force, which is what this is no matter how you try to classify soldiers, and 3. I disagree with that aspect of his strategy but acknowledge that his intentions are good.

As I've no interest in further reading your impression of what I have and have not read, I'll say 'goodnight' and let you have the last word.

[insanity]

65. I agree with your first two points, but

I think Obama's plan goes a long step forward in the right direction in terms of trying to stem the causes of terrorism in the future. By working with and investing in Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of dictating the terms and focusing only on force we could bolster the U.S. image in the region.

Also, it is a sad-truth that humanitarians in the region need force-protection.

[Clio the Leo]

35. So then what is the President's motivation?

Either he's being lied to (which would require him to be a lot more stupid than we thought him to be) or he's lying to us.

How does sending more troops to Afghanistan benefit him? Is he so interested in controlling their oil routes that he is not only lying about a false threat but simultaneously lying about his desire to get us to become less dependant on foreign energy.

I'm just not understanding the logic.

[spoony]

39. False dichotomy. He isn't lying, nor necessarily lied to

though the latter may be, no one can know. I believe he's sincere in his approach, and I'm equally sincere in thinking he's wrong.

[Clio the Leo]

43. AGAIN ..... WHAT is his motivation for doing this then?

PLEASE ... I'm not trying to argue with you .... I really want to know what your thought process is.

[spoony]

45. I just told you, I believe his motive is GOOD

He wants to achieve stability and safety. His motives are not his predecessor's. I am not questioning his PURPOSE but his STRATEGY.

[Exilednight]

48. You don't even know what his strategy is, for if you did then you wouldn't even bother .........

with this thread.

[spoony]

50. I didn't start this thread

And I guess by your horrible logic you don't know his plan either since you've "bothered with this thread." Why don't you turn back the way you came and let me get back to the people I'm actually interested in talking to.

[Exilednight]

51. Because you are misrepresenting Obama's plan. You think he's sending in more combat troops ........

to fight a war, but that's not his intention at all.

You want to criticize him, but you're not even sure why you are criticizing him. You're falling for right wing talking points.

[LWolf]

63. Write us from the front lines and let us know how it's going.

When you get there, send my family member home. He's been in the ME for way too long and we want him back.

I hope you aren't suggesting that AQ is important enough to spend my blood on, but not your own.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

22. he could send a few robots into the hillsides and caves in Afghanistan

and round up all the Al Queeds and talibans. Then all they troops can go home.

[jenmito]

25. And he's "president enough" to allow us to see the coffins coming home if the families allow it.

Unlike Bush, of course. At least you admit you knew he campaigned on this. It's not like it should be a surprise to anyone.

[zulchzulu]

26. Answer these four questions

1. Do you approve of the Taliban's view of the World as well as Al Qaeda's Wahabbist view of the world?

2. Do you think that Pakistan is in danger of becoming a nation overtaken by Al Qaeda-leaning forces and can be a danger to Europe and the rest of the World because of their possession of nuclear weapons?

3. Would you have disapproved of the military actions in Yugoslavia?

4. Are you concerned with human rights issues around the globe and would you also be against any miltary intervention in Darfur?

Answer these questions and I will see if you have any credibility or understanding of the complexities of foreign policy.

[cliffordu]

29. I can play!!!

1.) NO.
2.) YES.
3.) NO.
4.) YES....WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN DARFUR YEARS AGO.


How did I do??

[Clio the Leo]

30. Thank you.....

.... I cant get anyone who's opposed to more military action in Afghanistan to explain to me what they think will happen if we pulled ALL of our troops out completely.

Yes I'm all for diplomacy and I agree, for the most part, we shouldn't be the world's police (although I'm not sure that's practical.) But as I said the other day, we're paying for the sins of our fathers. I'm not sure that we can now leave the situation alone and expect everything to be fine.

In an ideal situation perhaps we wouldn't be there. But in an ideal situation, we wouldn't have dicked the rest of the world over for the past 20, 30, 40 .... however many years causing some to have more than a passing interest in seeing us stumble.

We have to simultaneously improve relations AND protect ourselves at the same time. That is exactly what I believe the President is doing.

[spoony]

34. You realise those were arguments used in support of Iraq War II right?

When the hell are Americans going to figure out that they can't solve all the world's problems by DROPPING BOMBS ON THEM?

[Clio the Leo]

37. So then the solution is..........

go ahead ..... drop it on me.

[spoony]

42. How about starting by not killing any more civilians or Americans

As I stated in another post in this thread, AQ and terrorism in general is not located in a convenient area that you can bomb the crap out of and "win." You have to go after the money that allows the loose network to operate, and obviously focus on domestic security efforts. There are a lot of people with a lot of ideas, but to act like the only feasible one is military action that historically has never worked for anyone is madness.

[Clio the Leo]

47. And you realize that his solution is not JUST a military one.....

.... right?

A campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone. Al Qaeda's offers the people of Pakistan nothing but destruction. We stand for something different. So today, I am calling upon Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by John Kerry and Richard Lugar that authorizes $1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years -- resources that will build schools and roads and hospitals

So to advance security, opportunity and justice -- not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces -- we need agricultural specialists and educators, engineers and lawyers. That's how we can help the Afghan government serve its people and develop an economy that isn't dominated by illicit drugs. And that's why I'm ordering a substantial increase in our civilians on the ground. That's also why we must seek civilian support from our partners and allies, from the United Nations and international aid organizations

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4896758.shtml

This is just an elaboration of what he told Meet the Press last December....

"We've got to really ramp up our development approach to Afghanistan. Part of the problem that we've had is that the average Afghan farmer hasn't seen any improvement in HIS life. We haven't seen the kinds of infrastructure improvements. We haven't seen the security improvements. We haven't seen the reduction in narco-trafficking. We haven't seen a reliance on rule of law in Afghanistan that would make people feel confident that the central government can deliver on its promises. If we combine effective development, more effective military work as well as more effective diplomacy then I think we can stabilize the situation. Our number one goal has to be that it cannot be used as a base to launch attacks against the United States."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=7962764

[spoony]

52. Of course those efforts are worthy ones

But winning hearts and minds is a hard road when one hand is holding grant money and the other a rifle. Doesn't anyone get what I'm saying?

[Hippo_Tron]

55. Except that they weren't supported by facts in that case

Saddam Hussein was a god-damn progressive humanitarian compared to many regimes around the world including our buddies in Saudi Arabia. Women actually had rights in Saddam's Iraq. And while he did gas the Kurds that was over a decade ago. He was not in the process of committing a genocide when we intervened.

[spoony]

59. But surely the solution to civil rights abuses

is not invasion? Whether it's Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, China, etc. we cannot effect that kind of change with the barrel of a gun. At least in the case of Darfur I'd understand, and maybe even agree with, military intervention (but not unilateral), but the battles we've chosen--on that scale--just don't measure up.

[Hippo_Tron]

60. Pakistan's democratically elected secular government is in danger of falling to the Taliban

This isn't a case of us coming in and installing a "democratic government". They elected their own government but it is in danger of falling to the Taliban, who are not supported by the majority by any means. I think it is in US interest to support the Pakistani government in any way we can and part of that might mean putting the Taliban on the defensive in Afghanistan.

Of course we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if Bush had a "Pakistan policy" instead of a "Musharraf policy" as Biden so correctly pointed out.

I don't think Obama is under any delusion that we are going to successfully conquer Afghanistan. But maybe we can secure Kabul and keep the good guys in Pakistan in power. Those are reasonable objectives, IMO.

Also if you've read about what Obama is doing, it really is a cut our losses type of strategy. He is negotiating with pretty much any faction in Afghanistan that we could possibly work with. Unlike Bush I really do think he has an exit strategy. It's just that some people would rather he give up everything so that we can exit immediately.

[TayTay]

66. Some of these questions are rigged

and the answers presupposed. That is not truly a fair way to gauge an opinion. But, let see what we have.

1. Do you approve of the Taliban's view of the World as well as Al Qaeda's Wahabbist view of the world?

Ah do I approve of the Taliban's view of the world? Am I a Wahabbist? This has something to do with trying to decide the equitable use of military resources by a non-majority Muslim nation in a predonominatly Muslim region thousands of miles away? How many Americans do you know who approve of the Taliban's or Al Qaeda's views of the world? What does this have to do with the strategy behind what the President is proposing in Afghanistan?

The question is rigged. What you want is an answer that says that people abhor the views of both groups. (Again, has there been a rash of people posting on DU who support either group's philosophy? Any ads being placed on DU lately for burqas?) Then the next argument is that because you disagree with that you must be in favor of a counter action. This is a logical fallacy. Being against the first thing does not imply support for the second.

Which versions of the Taliban? (Do you consider the Taliban to be the same as Al Qaeda?) Dexter Filkins, a reporter for the New York Times who has had multiple assignments in Afghanistan, has said that the Taliban support waxes and wanes. The country was in a shambles and corruption was rampant after the Soviet wars. People allowed the Taliban to take over because some order and an end to the corruption rampant in the country was better than no order and chaos. (That is generally true for most human settlements.) Some elements of the Taliban were friendly to Usama bin Laden because he had fought with the mujaheddin in the Soviet War. They took him in when the Saudi's exiled him. After the US invaded Afghanistan in Oct '01, Taliban forces split. Some aligned with the US, some abandoned the Taliban and went with the Northern Alliance. (Mr. Filkins says this was fairly common and witnessed this.) So, in order to counter what the Taliban really offered the country, we need to institute what they gave the people, a sense of order and stability and a foundation on which to begin to build a nation.

Al Qaeda is a violent fundamentalist movement that recruits members from across a range of Muslim nations. Afghanistan is a pawn in a greater game. There are Taliban elements in with Al Qaeda, but the two are not the same. Right now, Afghanistan is falling apart. Corruption is once again rampant and conditions favor the return of authoritarian rule. I think the counter to that is to help the country put a foundation under their society and economy. (Help with sustainable agriculture, infrastructure and so forth.) I also think that some of what we will end up doing will involve cooperation with some of the Taliban groups. (The ones, of course, less likely to be aligned with Al Qaeda.) We will never get rid of Al Qaeda or the Taliban. It is not our country and that is beyond the ability of the US to do or even attempt to do. So some of that philosophy will remain in place, no matter what we do.

2. Do you think that Pakistan is in danger of becoming a nation overtaken by Al Qaeda-leaning forces and can be a danger to Europe and the rest of the World because of their possession of nuclear weapons?

Afghanistan and Pakistan share a border and an ethnically aligned people, the Pashtun tribes. (The area has sometimes been called Pashtunistan.) Some 50 million people inhabit this area. I think this is a very dangerous spot. The Taliban has made great strides on both sides of the border. They recently took over the Swat Valley and imposed Sharia law on the area. I think they were aided and abetted by members of the ISI Intelligence Forces of the Pakistani Military. (I think Pakistan plays off of this conflict sometimes as a check to other internal political matters and as a check against India.)

There is most definitely a danger to the world from what is going on in Pakistan. The current President heads a weak and divided government that is in massive debt and unable to provide for much of it's people. That makes the promises of the Taliban for order, security and food seem good to a large number of people. The US has to counter this with financial aid. This is a matter of our national security interests and should have been done long ago. We cannot bomb these people into submission. We have to work with them to address their real issues. I think Pres. Obama is about right on his call there.

3. Would you have disapproved of the military actions in Yugoslavia?

Yes, but that is because I don't think Europe had enough invested in this. The US is too often put in the position of being the policeman of the world and having to fund that as well. I have never been satisfied that Europe had enough invested in the Baltics, considering that the problem was right on their doorstep.

4. Are you concerned with human rights issues around the globe and would you also be against any miltary intervention in Darfur?

Another misleading question that presupposes the answer. There are many people who are concerned with human rights issues who have problems with much of the military plans for escalating the war. Support for human rights does not automatically make an argument for increased military presence.

This is not World War II were we fought a standing army and could declare a definable victory. This is a long engagement to persuade people to another course. This involves a lot more than just military intervention. And what is the cost? Are we doing the right thing to have meaningful change in Darfur? Have we undertaken the steps to try and ensure self-sufficiency there? Who are the allies in this situation and what can be done to actually bring about a better situation, not one that resurfaces ever few seasons. One military intervention is not a solution to the problems of Darfur.

Now a question for you so I can see if you are serious about foreign policy:

What are the limits of American power? How many operations can we undertake at once and are there limits to those operations based on cost? (not just money but the cost to our troops and infrastructure.) What are the real trouble spots of the world and how do we best allocate limited resources to do the most good?

[bvar22]

68. I reject your premise.

I don't approve of the current US Worldview, nor the current US policy toward Human Rights.
Should Washington DC be carpet bombed?

[FrenchieCat]

38. Here are some dissenting views from yours.....

Obama Got Afghanistan/Pakistan Right
by Jon SoltzCo-Founder of VoteVets.org,
served as a Captain in Operation Iraqi Freedom

For those of us who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was extremely important that the new president get the situation in Afghanistan right. Not just for America's security, but for those troops still in Afghanistan, and those heading to Afghanistan to put their lives on the line in the war. With today's announcement, President Obama has shown that he "gets it." That's why we at VoteVets.org are supporting the plan with a petition, which you can sign on to, right here.

There's a lot to like about the plan. But, there are three key things I'm particularly focused on, that represent a stark departure from the previous administration. They show that this president not only has reasonable goals in the region, but a good idea of what it will take to get there.

Point One: The Military Can't Do It All

The president recognizes that the war against terrorists requires much more than just throwing troops at the problem. That alone will go a long way towards setting policies that make America safer, and taking the burden off our military.

The president said today, "To advance security, opportunity, and justice - not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces - we need agricultural specialists and educators; engineers and lawyers.... These investments relieve the burden on our troops. They contribute directly to security. They make the American people safer. And they save us an enormous amount of money in the long run - because it is far cheaper to train a policeman to secure their village or to help a farmer seed a crop, than it is to send our troops to fight tour after tour of duty with no transition to Afghan responsibility."

This is key, and something that was lacking in the region for a long time. Those hardline radicals who want to take control thrive on poverty and misery of the people. The single best thing we can do to ensure that the Afghan people aren't so destitute and broken that they're tempted to join these radicals, is to send civilian training and humanitarian aid.

Point Two: Though it's the "War in Afghanistan," we need to treat it like a region

That the president made a point of including Pakistan in this strategy, offering greater aid to them if the Pakistani government makes more of an effort to work and coordinate with us, is as smart as it is practical.

Everyone - myself included - has not helped when we bind the efforts in the region under the name "The War in Afghanistan." This is a regional problem, that requires a regional solution.

President Obama understands to get the support of the Pakistani people, which will make it easier to get the help we need from the Pakistani government, it takes carrots. And his plan focuses squarely on that. His support for legislation sponsored by Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar that authorizes $1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years, along with another bill that creates opportunity zones in the border region will go a long way towards getting the cooperation we need to really focus in on al Qaeda, and close in on them from the Pakistani and Afghan sides of the border region.

Point Three: There is a tighter focus, open to reaching out to some of the enemy

Maybe most importantly, this president has given up the pipe dream of setting up a European-style democracy in Afghanistan, and instead has refocused our goals on a more urgent mission - protecting America and the world from terrorism.

We've finally left fantasy-land, where America can simply go somewhere, topple a government, and western-style democracies will pop up and thrive. Afghanistan is a very different beast. And, while the president committed to helping build out infrastructure for the Afghan people, and improve the lives of the Pakistani people, he's not letting dreams of a grand new western democracy get in the way of more practical and tighter goals - namely, fighting al Qaeda and taking the region away as a home base for the terror network, forever.

To do so, the president recognized something that I wrote about last week - there are elements throughout the region that are fighting us now, but could become our partners. This might have been the most striking parts of the President's speech:

"There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated. But there are also those who have taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price. These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course. That is why we will work with local leaders, the Afghan government, and international partners to have a reconciliation process in every province. As their ranks dwindle, an enemy that has nothing to offer the Afghan people but terror and repression must be further isolated. And we will continue to support the basic human rights of all Afghans - including women and girls."

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Now, will everything go exactly according to plan? Of course not. Nor is this going to be quick. But with the points above, and the rest that the President laid out, those of us who served finally have confidence that this President gets it, and will keep us on the right course - the reasonable and practical course. That's something we veterans have been waiting for.

Crossposted at VetVoice.com
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/obama-got-afghanistanpaki_b_179982.html

Others who disagree: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8299548&mesg_id=8299548


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8299908&mesg_id=8299908

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8299912&mesg_id=8299912

Even Rachel Maddow is holding her fire: Starts at 2:22 on the substance,
rather than the rhetoric - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/

Corporate media likes your view for the time being.
Newsweek went as far as handing us a cute moniker,
and It seems to be catching on!
Support your conventional wisdom! :shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

56. I doubt this will involve the number of casualties that Iraq involved

I don't know exactly what Obama plans to do in Afghanistan but I'm sure he knows that the dumbest thing you can do is get bogged down in an endless war with massive casualties. Johnson learned that the hard way. I would say Bush learned that the hard way too, except that I don't think he learned much of anything.

[MadBadger]

57. Only 1 rec? Jeez, where are the rest of the Nader folks?

[lamp_shade]

61. With the Kooch folks.

[LWolf]

62. I listened. I knew. I opposed.

Then and now.

[stillcool]

64. I'm sure he understands very well...

our history of empire building. How could he not? We've been pursuing dominance in the Middle-east for decades upon decades. It has been United States policy to intervene with military force any time U.S. business interests are threatened in the Middle-east since the Carter Doctrine, and has been expanded on by every President since. My only hope is that we will be a kinder, gentler empire, but when we manufacture and sell more weapons than any other country on the planet, I question my naivete.

[genna]

69. I am on the opposite side of that argument

Bush just messed up. We, the consumer, did not see better oil prices. We did not feel safer. We just received a boogie man and killed the sovereign leader of another country.


I knew Colin Powell was telling the truth about when we broke it, we'd have to stay to fix it. It wouldn't matter once we were in whether we had the right initially to be there in the first place. We haven't left a place where we have had a military engagement in the last 100 years. Every place we ever went we retained a presence there big or small to protect our interest or our sacrifice. I didn't think we'd do differently in Iraq.


Regardless of what Obama said, I didn't think he'd be any different than any other Democratic President in the last 100 years. Some of it is paternalism, the rest is the blame assigned to a failed state.

Have we left Central and South America alone? Our grasp goes way beyond the tomfoolery of Iraq.


At least with Afghanistan, there is a semblance of a connection among the airlines, the Pentagon and NYC happenings in 2001. I doubt we will be out of ME in the next 10 years much less the next 20.

[earth mom]

70. How many people swore on this forum that Obama was just doing what "he had to do" to get elected

but once in office would end the war, fix the economy, kick the bankers to the curb...fooled ya'll didn't he? :grr: