Reply #11: the resistance increased with the troop escalation. That was well documented.

[bigtree]

The 'resistance' which is the most pernicious now is the increase in the use of roadside bombs and ieds. The method of operation of the insurgency (most insurgencies for that matter) is to blend into the background and wait out the U.S. forces. If direct fighting has dropped off (I'd ask the Canadians and the French troops about that) it's because the fighters are staging a tactical retreat. It's not rocket science.

More pernicious to the president's goals there is the animosity that the U.S. presence and activity has generated among the Afghan public. Despite the rosy polls that were trumpeted in the past months, The protests against the overreach and collateral effects of the stepped-up U.S. presence and activity can't have gone unnoticed by you. Yet I see that you've become invested in the military leadership's narrative about 'success'.

For the U.S. to 'succeed' in Afghanistan behind the force of our military, it will have to transition their offensive mission, almost immediately after their deadly, opportunistic assaults among the population, to a diplomatic one. That effort is always predictably staged, with friendlies lined up behind the line we draw with our advancing forces and everyone on the other side considered 'insurgent' or 'militant' in their resistance. Yet you represent the advance of our forces as some sort of benevolence.

Now, you are just wrong about my impression of what threatens Pakistanis. There is a marked difference between what threatens the citizens of Pakistan and what threatens their government. There is more danger among those in Pakistan than our military forces. The most pernicious to date, however, has been the threat of blowback from our Afghanistan occupation. That doesn't mean that the political conflicts which led to the assassination of Bhutto have ended or been replaced. As with every country which has found their citizens in the way of the U.S. war on terror. Pakistan's own internal struggles have been aggravated by the resistance to the U.S. military advance. We have made the political and security situations in both Pakistan and Afghanistan worse with our unbridled and opportunistic militarism; seemingly arbitrary if you are an Afghan or Pakistani caught in the way.

I've acknowledged that we're leaving Iraq, but that hasn't ended the civil conflict which our invasion and occupation unleashed and exacerbated. This notion you have of 'working with the U.S. enabled Maliki regime is laughable. Tell me again how relevant that propped government is to the people of Iraq when the U.S. actually leaves Iraq to Iraqis. Right now, they are still under occupation.

It's telling that the civil strife is increasing as we pull away . . . Completely predictable and underscoring the folly of the entire enterprise which you seem to be calling a success just because we've just about stopped. Full credit to this administration for ending the occupation, but there is no praise to be afforded the U.S. for our bungling, blustering militarism there. It was all folly and much of the occupation criminal, despite the fact that we're able to exit with our backs straight and our hands where Iraqis can see them.

We are still occupiers in Iraq. That is a fact. Hard for U.S. hopefuls to deal with, but we still have our boot on Iraq's throat. After we opened Iraq to foreign investment under Bush, most of Iraq's resources were parceled out of their citizen's benefit. I don't believe that there is an equitable benefit afforded the Iraqi people by the central government which receives most of the benefit of U.S. largess. But, you go on believing that we've tied all of the military imperialism all up in a pretty bow just because we've finally found the sense to leave.

You make a cute point about U.S. occupiers in Asia by claiming I meant ALL of Asia. Cute. We are still an aggravating, occupying force in Afghanistan/Pak border. Is that presence and activity really as welcome as you present? I certainly don't see that. Tolerated, yes. Welcome, no.

You posted that fluff piece of military propaganda in the Obama group because it's an echo chamber. I have a 'high opinion' of what you write as well (not so much the personalizations you make along the way). Again, you should try posting that piece where it can be subject to critical review.

Oh, and the crack you made that I'll be 'disappointed if the Taliban is significantly reduced as a military force' is an outrageous accusation and worthy of the rhetoric we're used to hearing from the Bush administration's defenses against their anti-war critics.

Preconceived ideas? As if you don't have a pov? Try again to debate this issue in an open forum without the personalizations. You just might find yourself open to, and aware of, some very cogent arguments which contradict your own beliefs in this matter.