Barack Obama plans 20,000 troop surge to boost Afghan effort

[Meeker Morgan]

Source: Telegraph.co.uk

The President-Elect's intention to shift the focus of the fight against terrorism to Afghanistan has been bolstered by Robert Gates agreement to stay on as Defence Secretary.

Mr Gates is a strong believer in an Afghan surge, which would not only put thousands more boots on the ground but involve negotiations with malleable branches of the Taliban.

It would also aim to boost co-operation with Iran and Pakistan where some elements have supported the anti-Western insurgency.

The need for more US troops in addition to the 32,000 already serving, has been accelerated by the Afghan presidential election in September 2009, and the voter registration process that begins in the New Year, Mr Gates said.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/...

---

Change?

[babylonsister]

1. We'll see. Karzai apparently wants a deadline for the US to get out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Mari333]

3. isnt karzai our puppet tho?

he will do whatever US intere$t$ tell him to do.

[Mari333]

2. bad, bad, bad , bad move. very bad. very very bad. damn.

the real reason we are in afghanistan

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Buzz Clik]

4. Our interest in the Central Asian pipeline has been very well known for a long time.

For the Bush administrations (Bush 41 and Bush 43) and Carter, energy was a perfectly acceptable motivation for the use of force. That's why we had Desert Storm, Afghanistan I, Afghanistan II, and the invasion of Iraq.

[Mari333]

5. and its never right. n/t

[Buzz Clik]

8. GHW Bush, Jimmy Carter, and GW Bush all felt justified.

Actually, we can put Clinton on that list, but he pretty much inherited the problem.

Just about everybody has some reason to feel justified in sending the country to war. And there's another group that feels that violence is never justified under any circumstance.

[Mari333]

9. well, if the corporate oil interests want their pipeline to be secure

let them hire their own bodyguards and leave our tax dollars and soldiers out of it.

[Buzz Clik]

12. Just playing the devil's advocate for a moment: Do you use fossil fuels in your daily life?

Do you anticipate using them in the future? Then, we'll need to secure them. {/devil's advocate}

Personally, I agree that we shouldn't go to war for oil, but I also see the danger in letting 50% of the oil be controlled by people who, quite frankly, don't like any aspect of western society other than our money. Let's hope that Obama follows through on his plan for big boosts for alternative energy to get us away from that dangerous game.

[Bragi]

15. Alternative energy versus war?

I'm guessing the escalation of the war will end of costing a whole lot than whatever will be allocated to alternative energy. This war is pointless and wrong and unwinnable.

I say that not as a pacifist, which I'm not, strictly speaking. I say that as someone who has studied and read about this war in some considerable detail.

- B

[Mari333]

19. I am the mother of 2 soldiers.

which means , of course, I would rather live in a cardboard box and keep myself warm with a stack of wood if it meant my sons would not end up in a war for corporate profit. luckily one came home and one hopefully wont go.
again, let the oil companies buy their own security.

[Art_from_Ark]

72. What war did we fight under Carter?

That is, a war in which the US military was directly involved?

[Bigmack]

6. They.. all of them...

just can't resist the lure of an overseas "adventure", can they?

Whatever it is that they want, it would probably be cheaper - in dollars and blood - to just buy it.

Nobody wins in Afghanistan.

[Bragi]

7. Barack is very wrong on this war...

The Afghanistan war is a bad war. The coalition si going to lose. No good can come from it.

In this regard, Barack was wrong to support this war as a political candidate, and as President he would be much better served by finding some way to de-escalate it rather than ramp it up.

I am very depressed that -- six months from now -- I may find myself at antiwar protests protesting against what will then be "Obama's war".

Barack, please back away from this war before it becomes a blight on your new administration globally and domestically.

- B

[CountAllVotes]

36. no war is right

and Obama should know this but he doesn't. I think he is a fool.

I'm wondering I voted for quite honestly!

[cali]

46. I hate simple mindedness. Some wars are neccessary.

And anyone that didn't educate themeselves about Obama's positions is a fool. Voting for someone you know nothing about, as YOU obviously did, and whinging about it, is quite pathetic.

[CountAllVotes]

51. he said the Iraq war was a "dumb idea"

and then he started up with this invading Pakistan stuff. People were saying that he was just saying this to collect votes. I thought he'd back off too.

I guess he has not.

So, yes, I guess I am the fool not Obama and his war without end.

[PurityOfEssence]

54. We're supposed to have faith

Not only do I detest the word, I detest its implications. The unfounded belief in something is not good for people, and I'll stand by that.

His record as a legislator is EXTREMELY weak, having habitually ducked controversy and attempted to be on whatever side of an issue benefited him at the moment with that particular audience.

He made voluble hay out of Hillary voting for the Sense of the Senate on Iran, painting her as a dangerous warmonger, but he didn't even bother to vote himself. Some would make varied excuses for it, but I see it as a desire to not go on the record so he could portray it as he pleased depending on subsequent events.

We were told to believe that his many hard turns to the right after securing the nomination were simply lies to the right. The very heart of his candidacy after the nomination was that he was LYING TO THEM, but not to us. The soul of the candidacy was rooted in a subversive snickering that he was fucking the reactionaries, but he'd be truthful and decent to us. Upon what is this based? It's based on faith. It's the cult of the personality. It's trust founded only in our hopes and need for salvation and a leader to whom we can abdicate our adulthood and nestle with in some joyous bliss.

He really didn't mean the FISA crap; he was lying to them, not us. He really won't increase faith-based funding THAT much; it's not creeping theocracy, it's an attempt to parry the reactionaries. Oil drilling won't really happen like he said; it was just lying to them. There WILL, however be war, because he can't seem like a candy-assed lefty. That's okay; it's a long way away...

Maybe he resigned his Senate seat when he did to really concentrate on the transition, but it was a handy way to duck a vote on the Auto Makers...

He can't run anymore. Now he has to stand up and stand for something. If he doesn't repeal the tax cuts, that's a problem. If he drags his feet on health care, that is too. Now, he's got a very bad hand dealt to him, and although I'm not in any sense a fan, I'm going to keep my bellyaching restricted to this board and close friends; he's reaping EXTREME karma now: not only does the buck stop at his desk, it's a time of major disaster in many arenas.

He has many skills, but the one he needs more than anything else right now is steadfastness and the courage to stand up and be decisive. This is precisely what he's not done in the past; his whole claim of being against the IWR comes from one speech to his anti-war constituents, and it was so unimportant to him that it wasn't even videotaped. Hell, there's not even a complete audio tape of it, and he avoided the subject from then on. That's the sign of political bet-hedging, not forthright leadership.

Perhaps he truly is the shrewd leader so many believe and he'll shed his coat of many colors now that he's climbed to the podium. We shall see; he has to.

[PurityOfEssence]

52. This isn't one of them

Some wars ARE necessary, and even GOOD, but this simply isn't. It's also strategic stupidity and without even a definition of what victory would look like.

You'll remember that MANY of us brought up Mr. Obama's compensatory saber-rattling quite some time ago, so hopefully when some of us point out that we weren't suckered you won't have a glib rejoinder. Somehow, in the blinkered sanctimony about how our President-Elect knows and sees all, the possibility of ruinous war just isn't a big deal.

The body count starts when he takes the reins of power, and if the idiotic adventurism into Afghanistan meets with the results that history suggests, the blush of idealism will be justifiably called into account.

Fine, bark at others who got conned by the sweetness and light of the "anti-war" (hahahahahaha) candidate, but have a scrap of decency if they were swept along with the bullshit talking points without delving too deeply.

Enough of that. What do you have to say to the many of us who were so repeatedly slapped down for pointing out how much of a compensation candidate he was/is? Many of us pointed out how so very many of his stances are flat-out attempts to disprove assumptions about him, and chief among these would be his need to be a big, swaggering, tough-guy male to counter the right wing's typification of non-conservatives as appeasers. Many of us brought this up and said how dangerous it could be.

Now that such pleasure is taken is slapping down suckers who believed his window-dressing peacefulness, what's the response to those of us who pointed out the dangerousness of someone who's given to being all things to all people? How does this sit when the subject is war?

A simple look at a map show the geography of Afghanistan to be untenable. If Russia decides to deny right-of-passage and Pakistan blows up, WE CAN'T EVEN SUPPLY THE TROOPS or retrieve them.

Beyond that, please describe what victory would look like. If you're pro-war in this bit of imperial strutting, at least define what the goal is. While you're at it, describe how letting Afghanistan do what it will upon an immediate withdrawal is going to help the will-o-the-wisp Al Queda, or how bringing Afghanistan to heel (subjugation being part of ANY version of "victory") would impede Al Queda.

People who were suckered by Mr. Obama's repeated distortions about his peacefullness were merely duped by your hero. Yep, it's their fault for not delving deeper or really paying attention to what's on the surface. It's like laughing at someone who just got taken in a con. Silly me, I thought the leftist or liberal approach was to have some sympathy for the wronged, instead of snickering along with the perpetrators as they go on a literal killing spree.

[Bragi]

56. Well stated!

I was among those who kept throwing up warnings here early on about the position Obama was staking out on Afghanistan, and I remember being told that it was all just "positioning" so as to win the election.

I will admit I kind of backed off thinking maybe Obama would somehow finesse this issue. However, when he reiterated his intention to escalate the war close towards the end of the campaign, I knew then that he intended to do just that.

I'm still quite glad that he was elected, of course, because the alternative would have been much worse. But I know now that I will eventually likely end up protesting against Obama's war.

- B

[CountAllVotes]

58. well said

and yes, I agree with you and the prior poster. I have nothing to add as the two of you have said all that needs to be said for the time being.

[Bjorn Against]

69. So are you suggesting we should have voted against him if we didn't agree on every issue?

I knew Obama was wrong on this issue when I voted for him, but I also knew that McCain was even worse. You seem to be suggesting that it is pathetic for someone to vote for a candidate they have disagreements with because they know that overall they are better than the opposition, I don't think you will win too many elections with that attitude.

[Hannah Bell]

91. what's pathetic is your resort to personally attacking someone who's just

expressing their opinion.

DU is a chatboard, no?

A liberal, democratic board which prides itself on not being a collection of lockstep nazis like the "other" chatboard, no?

[shanti]

88. oh jeez

so who else would you have voted for?

[Hannah Bell]

92. two war candidates: "who would you vote for?"

it's me who should be doing the eye-rolling....

[shanti]

95. please answer the question

who ELSE would you have voted for? mccain?

[High Plains]

98. Well, there were several anti-war candidates:

Libertarian Bob Barr

Green Party's Cynthia McKinney

Ralph Nader.

None of them, of course, are members of the Single Unified Capitalist War Party (Democrats and Republicans).

[shanti]

101. well...

my first choice was kucinich, but realistically, i knew that wouldn't go anywhere. i do like obama tho, and am taking a 'wait and see' approach with him and his issues, in particular, the SCOTUS.

[Hannah Bell]

102. Hitler v Stalin: who would you vote for?

no, no discussion. answer the question, damn it!! cause that's the only choice you've got.

sheex.

[shanti]

104. please

no need to be ridiculous.

[fbahrami]

107. would depend

on their position on ... gay marriage!

[ixion]

10. I'd prefer to see a surge for change, rather than

the same tired old tactics that do nothing but cause death and destruction.

[Bragi]

11. The "surge" (i.e. escalation) will itself cause death and destruction

This was is becoming Obama's folly, and the results will continue to be tragic and pointless for everyone involved.

- B

[ixion]

13. agreed...

by "surge for change" I meant getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq and starting to act like a civilized country, rather than a barbarian hoard.

[Bragi]

16. Thanks for the clarification

I misunderstood your earlier comment.

- B

[Mari333]

21. yes, we needed to change that militaristic chest thumping adolescent behaviour

a long long time ago. when will we ever learn. maybe when we are completely bankrupt.

www.costofwar.com

[SammyWinstonJack]

42. Shouldn't be much longer then.

When will we ever learn. Maybe when we are completely bankrupt. Soon, very soon.

[ChazII]

23. Agreed

and that is how I took your comment.

[Buzz Clik]

14. A properly fought war doesn't have to last until the end of time.

You set objectives, you attain them, and then you leave.

The strategy of staying involved for the sole reason of staying involved will result in failure, as seen in Vietnam, Afghanistan for the USSR, Bush's plan for Iraq.

Clinton's approach to his little war was perfect. He also recognized the insanity of staying in Somalia and got the hell out. I'm confident we'll see something similar from Obama. I'm not inclined to project that he's a big failure when we're still 7 weeks from his inauguration.

[Bragi]

17. Obama has no reasonable objectives for this war

As I recall, Obama says he wants to escalate the war to kill OBL and eliminate the threat from al Qaeda.

I believe him, I just think he is wrong because 1) neither of them are in Afghanistan and 2) neither actually represents any significant threat to the US at this time.

I fear Barack is now creating his own ill-considered quagmire here, despite the fact that one of the things that propelled him to office was widespread public revulsion over the equally wrong and destructive quagmire in Iraq created by Bush.

- B

[Buzz Clik]

18. Talk to me in 6 months.

[High Plains]

114. You think Afghanistan is going to be pacified in six months?

Bush has had six years. The Russians mucked about for 10 years.

A US escalation in Afghanistan will likely lead to political violence throughout the region and destablize the government of Pakistan. See ya in six months.

[CountAllVotes]

41. I agree

I happen to think that Osama Bin Laden is dead. I never understood Obama's thinking on this.

Perhaps this latest twist on the "WAR ON TERROR" will indeed be Obama's Vietnam.

[ohio2007]

20. Are you saying Somalia is a better place because of it or the media spin told him to cut and run

Why did he go into Somalia in the first place?

any clue?

[Buzz Clik]

31. Start a new thread.

[SOS]

39. Clinton did not go into Somalia

The United States launched Operation PROVIDE RELIEF on 15 August 1992.
Operation RESTORE HOPE, began on 8 December 1992.

Bush was President in 1992.

http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/Somalia/Somalia.h...

[ohio2007]

94. 1993

Blackhawk down quagmire happened on Bush I watch ?
Bush sent in food relief,
warlords took possesion of food.
warlords tok over the country.
I see your revisionist history in the works. I'm sure Clinton didn't order the bombing of the asprin factory and training camp missile atacks either

[ixion]

24. there is no such thing as a "properly fought" guerrilla war

that is, no occupying force has ever won against a populace that does not want to be occupied.

[Buzz Clik]

32. Did I say anything about the US being an occupying force? Did Obama?

The concern trolls live at DU.

[ixion]

35. yeah, we've only been there for what... SIX YEARS

how many years do we have to stay there killing their civilians? Ten? Twenty?

Concern troll my ass. I don't like to see people killed in my name, and with my tax dollars, thanks.

[Buzz Clik]

37. You put words in my mouth and then take a big righteous shit in your pants over it.

Calling you a "concern troll" in the current context is damned close to a compliment.

[coalition_unwilling]

45. I am no fan of imperialism, but your

statement is factually incorrect.

Nazi Germany occupied both Poland and France in the 1940s. Each country was liberated only by external forces (USSR in the East and Britain and the US in the West), and not by internal resistance to occupation.

[ohio2007]

22. Bring back taliban rule.

the Afghans were better off during the 90's anyway

:sarcam:

[Mari333]

25. we paid the Taliban millions in the 80s and armed them too

we create regimes and then complain about them when they get in our way.
its not our job to save afghanistan.

[ohio2007]

48. we ignored them in the 90's and they pushed the weaker tribes out

http://www.rawa.org/murder-w.htm

It's not our problem

( yes, just put me on your ignor list )

[ronnie624]

74. You imply that we invaded Afghanistan

to free women from theocratic tyranny?

Halfwit.

[Bragi]

27. Please face reality...

The Taliban or their fundie ilk have been in control of the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan for about 200 years. They will be there, still in charge, long after the last Coalition casualty is sent home in a body bag.

As for OBL and al Qaeda, they moved their operations out of the country years ago. The only thing that brings them back to Afghanistan is access to Westerner troops they can attack.

It's bad war. It's time to make it clear to Obama that escalating this war will be a tragic mistake.

- B

[Odin2005]

63. I'm sure Afgan women and girls will like going back to being treated like subhumans again!

[Fumesucker]

90. One of the reasons the Taliban gained power to start with..

Was that the Northern Alliance was *worse* in terms of how they treated civilians.

[High Plains]

99. Karzai wants to negotiate with the Taliban.

Seems like the puppet master has lost control of his marionette.

Karzai is also talking wistfully of being able to shoot down American planes, perhaps only for domestic consumption (people in any country seem to get offended when foreigners are blowing them up), but perhaps he really means it.

Maybe we should, as Karzai asks, let the Afghans sort this out themselves.

[Mari333]

26. good Boston Globe article about why Obama is wrong about Afghanistan

http://files.tikkun.org/current/article.php?story=20081...

[Bragi]

28. Another good source

Check out international affairs columnist Eric Margolis.

He wrote several weeks back of Obama and Afghanistan:

AFGHANISTAN – Obama has failed to understand the deep tribal and historical complexities of the struggle in Afghanistan. He has vowed to send 15,000 more troops and even attack inside Pakistan. Obama should listen to the Secretary General of NATO and senior officers who say no military solution to the conflict is possible. The way out of the Afghan quagmire is through negotiations that include Taliban and its allies. Ending this unnecessary war is urgent. The longer it continues, the greater the threat that nuclear-armed Pakistan will explode and destabilize the entire region.

http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/obam...

Also: TIME TO FACE FACTS IN AFGHANISTAN
http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/time...

- B

[Mari333]

29. thanks. i have this really awful feeling

that i will be protesting again in the streets against yet another military mistake.
this is getting old, fast.

[Bragi]

33. Me too

It almost makes me nauseous to think how this war is going to cause major divisions among Barack's own base of supporters.

I feel terrible about this, but for me, there is simply no way I can support him in this war.

- B

[Mari333]

34. yes, on this one issue i vehemently do NOT support him n/t

[ronnie624]

75. Informative articles. Thanks. n/t

[leftchick]

30. yeah! More dead bodies!

[Mithreal]

38. We can't fix Afghanistan with guns and bombs.

PE Obama was always clear about escalating the war in Afghanistan.

We didn't break Afghanistan, it has been broken a long time.

PE Obama is wrong to support any of Bush's wars. Where is the upside to killing more people in Afghanistan? You hawks out there, please explain it to me. But you won't will you?

I will continue to protest the wars weekly. When an escalation kills more Afghanis I will protest it as Obama's war. I am sorry, but it really will be his war, not America's. The American people do not support these wars. Wake up. How does our hope message really express itself in gov't sanctioned murder of more people?

I want change we can all believe in, not more of the same. Too much to ask?

[Phred42]

40. Really stupid move here's why: Afghan president wishes he could down U.S. planes

So why does Obama want to 'help' this guy?

Afghan president wishes he could down U.S. planes

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSISL4085662...


Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Wednesday he would bring down U.S. planes bombing villages if he could, in a sign of growing tension between Afghanistan and its Western backers as the Taliban insurgency grows in strength. As Western dissatisfaction with Karzai has grown over his failure to crack down on corruption and govern effectively, the Afghan president, facing elections next year, has hit back over the killing of dozens of civilians in foreign air strikes. In recent weeks, Karzai has repeatedly blamed the West for the worsening security in Afghanistan, saying NATO failed to target Taliban and al Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan and calling for the war to be taken out of Afghan villages. "We have no other choice, we have no power to stop the planes, if we could, if I could ... we would stop them and bring them down," Karzai told a news conference.

[antimatter98]

43. We need to focus here at home, not more stupid expensive wars.

Why is it we have 10 bn a month for war, but can't help the people
here in America? We starve and endure layoffs 'on our own,' but
we hand 10bn/mo to the Iraq war, soon to be escalated to include Afghanistan.

The war business is very very good. While Main Street dies.

So far with Obama, I see zero difference from how BushCo treated
the internal issues in America---ignore them, while focusing totally on war
and on banking ripoffs as 'deregulation.'

Where's the CHANGE? I don't see it on my charts.

[machI]

44. More than half the people under the aegis of 'Taliban' are drug criminals

They are mad because the West, lead by the United States, has come in and trashed the opium trade in the area.

It will be somewhat of a challenge to negotiate with local factions who want all foreigners out, ideological factions who want the non-islamic foreigners out, and organized crime who want out anybody who stands in the way of their drug trade.

[ohio2007]

47. going to need to cut a deal with Russia to keep the supply lines open. With the burst oil bubble, I

I think Putin is ready to dictate these supply route deals.
The cost of keeping 20,000 more troops in Afghanistan will be as high as maintaining 50,000 troops in Iraq.

[totodeinhere]

49. I know that this is an unpopular position to hold at DU, but guess what.

I know this is a shock, but I support and trust President Obama on this. The whole idea is to try to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan so that we can eventually wind down our involvement there.

If US and NATO forces unilaterally pulled out now there would be a bloodbath of historic proportions on our hands. Just like Clinton will always be remembered for mistakes he made with his Rwanda policy, Obama would have a bloodbath in Afghanistan as a part of his legacy, even thought the real fault would lie with shrub and the neocons.

[Bragi]

50. You are completely wrong

If Obama starting talking now about ending rather than escalating this war, then what would happen is that Karzai would negotiate a truce with the Taliban, the drug barons, tribal lords and religious zealots would work out a deal (with or without Karzai), and Afghanistan would return to being one of the poorest and most backward countries on earth.

The difference between now and before 2001, whoever ends up running the place, is that there will be no welcome or role or coverage for an OBL or any foreign al Qaeda types, what all the trouble they caused last time. Everyone will agree to focus on creating a vibrant 9th century culture in their own little corner of the world without bothering anyone else.

In fact, this is the likely outcome whether or not Obama escalates or ends this war. It's just a matter of how many people have to die, get maimed or live more poorly than would otherwise be the case, how many villages have to be blown up, how much mayhem and unhappiness needs to unfold. Most people in Afghanistan think they've already had enough.

- B

[totodeinhere]

57. Why should the Taliban want to negotiate if they think that NATO is leaving anyway?

The only way to get moderate elements of the Taliban to negotiate is through strength. Unfortunately, there will be more violence no matter what policy we pursue. But Obama and his advisers have concluded that the best way forward which will in the long run produce less violence is to try a short term surge.

This policy is a mainstream position of the Democratic Party, if not of the ideologues at DU. It is supported by Obama, the Dem congressional leadership, and all of the former Dem candidates for president during the past primary season except for Kucinich.

And BTW, IMHO we cannot stand by and allow the genocide of the entire GLBT community in Afghanistan, which is what will happen if the Taliban take over again, and be assured that they will sweep back to power within months if NATO leaves.

[Bragi]

59. You wrote:

we cannot stand by and allow the genocide of the entire GLBT community in Afghanistan, which is what will happen if the Taliban take over again, and be assured that they will sweep back to power within months if NATO leaves.

The GLBT community in Afghanistan! What effin' planet are you from? I can assure you that the GLBT community in Afghanistan (!!!) along with anyone of any gender who seeks to escape 9th century norms, have never found, and will never find, much freestyle living in Afghanistan. This is one of the poorest, most backward parts of the world. Nothing much changes there.

So yes, once the Coalition leaves, the Taliban and their ilk will resume running the place. The only question we need to ask is is how many do we intend to kill and injure before leaving? How many of villages should be raised? How many Coalition troops should die, and how much treasure should be spent?

I think this war should end now. It should not be escalated.

- B

[totodeinhere]

61. I guess we will just have to disagree. But thankfully, Obama and most Democrats agree with me on...

this, not you.

[babylonsister]

65. Karzai might already be negotiating a truce. This too is Obama's

cross to bear, I trust.

http://washingtonindependent.com/20062/karzai-whoa-call...

snip//

Another thing to consider. Karzai gave this intriguing quote:

“If there is no deadline, we have the right to find another solution for peace and security, which is negotiations,” Karzai was quoted as saying in a statement from his office.

Is it too much of a stretch to wonder if Karzai is floating the timetable idea as a bank shot way of promoting his negotiations with the Taliban? In other words, is he trying to box people — namely, Americans — into thinking that the only thing less desirable than negotiating with the insurgency is to set a date for leaving Afghanistan, so they better support the first option?

And another thing, in the context of those negotiations: If it’s true that the Taliban feels stronger than the government right now, would it feel such an incentive to negotiate if it believed Karzai was going to kick the U.S. out no matter what?

[Alamuti Lotus]

53. Wedding parties: BEWARE!

[fbahrami]

108. not a good time

to marry in Afghanistan!

[ryanmuegge]

55. WE CAN'T AFFORD THIS, YOU IDIOT.

There goes Social Security and Medicare (continuing the policy of excessive military spending and all of the banking bailouts that have happened and the ones yet to come).

Well, at least our long-term debt obligations will look pretty good compared with other countries, I guess. Maybe that will keep China investing to keep this house of cards up for a few more years.

[ohio2007]

60. The # 2 of AQ warned Barack not to do that

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/26/al-qaeda-conde...

And Obama plans to bring a gun to that knife fight.

Obama Leads Global Condemnation of Mumbai Attacks (Update5)

Nov. 27 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama led global condemnation of grenade and gun assaults in India’s financial hub of Mumbai, the third major terrorist attack targeting foreigners in South Asian nations this year.


The U.S. will work “with India and nations around the world to root out and destroy terrorist networks,” Obama’s transition team said in a statement. Gunmen raided Mumbai’s Taj Mahal Palace and Tower Hotel and the Oberoi Trident and carried out attacks across the city that killed at least 101 people.

The violence in Mumbai came two months after a suicide bombing on the Marriott Hotel in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, killed 40 people and a January attack on the luxury Serena Hotel in the Afghan capital, Kabul, killed eight.

“Terrorism in Asia is on the rise,” said Rohan Gunaratna, head of the Singapore-based International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research. “It’s paramount for Asian countries to convene a summit to fight the rising terrorism.”

Militants are finding it difficult to hit diplomatic targets so are attacking hotels instead, he said.

The U.S. “stands ready to help the Indian government” and is continuing to monitor the situation, including the safety and security of its citizens, the Bush administration said in a statement.
The White House National Security Council convened after the attacks with officials from counterterrorism and intelligence agencies as well as the State and Defense Departments, it said.



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=axK...

so maybe the Joe Biden "six months into his administration he will be tested"may have started during his current tenure in the office of president elect ?

[Mari333]

62. root out and destroy terrorists?

where have i heard that line before.

[ryanmuegge]

68. Joe Biden doesn't know shit about shit. His "foreign policy expert" reputation is a fucking joke.

It was created by the tabloid reporters in the corporate media, not by solid policy decisions or any other real substance.

[ohio2007]

77. yet a YouTube video is out there with an audible track of Joe's own words

the "media" reported the same quote.
I think saying the world will turn into a garden of eden on 1/21/09 is the fucking joke.


wake up !?!?
I laughed at this bloggers Joe Biden screed.

Some day the artery in his forehead will pop

[unkachuck]

64. K&R....smells like more perpetual war....more changeless change....n/t

[Celeborn Skywalker]

66. I don't understand

why so many here are surprised. He said many time throughout the campaign that he planned to redirect troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.

I took him at his word that he would do what he said he would do.

[Jennicut]

67. I hate to break it to some of you but if you did not like Obama's policy of Afghanistan during the

campaign then why did you vote for him? His "change" was always to pay more attention in Afghanistan and less in Iraq because we went there and then invaded Iraq and forgot all about what was happening in Afghanistan. And this is not Obama's war, its Bush's and he never finished it. I want us out of both places but you cannot just leave either country and expect there not to be further problems. We created two messes and now Obama has to clean them up. I like getting out of Iraq in 12-15 months and figuring out the best way to help the Afghan people and then get out of there, whatever it takes.

[Bjorn Against]

71. Are you also suggesting we should not have voted for Obama?

If I only voted for candidates who I agreed with on everything I wouldn't ever vote. I disagreed with Obama on this issue very strongly since the day I first heard him speak his position months ago, but I wasn't about to think McCain would be any better. I honestly don't know how you think Obama could have won the election if everyone who disagreed with him on some issues voted against him.

[ohio2007]

78. people thought he would 'change' his mind after landing enough centrist leaning right votes

I still believe he meant what he said about going into Pakistan with verifiable intelligence. guess what ?
It's been known for years and the change is going to be acting on it.

[EFerrari]

80. Because disagreeing with Obama on one or fifteen issues

is not reason to vote for McCain.

[Jennicut]

81. True but I take the man at his word, he said this was his plan all along, why the false outrage?

[EFerrari]

82. Why should the outrage be false? I'm sure some people didn't like it

when he said last summer and they continue not to like it now.

[JeanGrey]

106. I thought we were hiring a progressive liberal who would get us

OUT of WAR and into Single payer health Insurance - are you telling me that before he is in there we can forget it?

[bemildred]

70. This seems to be "some say" drivel. nt

[earth mom]

73. I told ya'll so. I knew this was gonna happen months ago.

[ohio2007]

76. got a link to verify the "I told you so" screed ?

I would like to read the responses to your post

[ronnie624]

89. It has always been obvious that it was "gonna happen".

There's no point in getting upset.

There has been no reform to our political process or our government, only a minor change in influence to the foreign policy apparatus from one faction of the Corporatist party to the other. History shows conclusively that U.S. foreign policy is constant, no matter which 'party' controls the executive.

[Mari333]

79. ruh roh

http://www.gocomics.com/tedrall/

[theboss]

83. In other words, Obama is doing EXACTLY what he promised to do

My guess is that we will be in Iraq for closer than two years, rather than 16 months. But we are going to start drawing down there (using the SOFA agreement as political cover) and move some troops to Afghanistan.

Which is EXACTLY what Obama said would happen.

And people are upset.

Go figure.

[Vidar]

84. Although Alexander won most of the battles & skirmishes there,

he wisely withdrew as it was costing him too many casualties & there were no riches to be looted. Britain had a number of disasters involving fanatic tribal Afghan fighters & the Khyber Pass & the Soviets bankruptcy was largely based on their misbegotten invasion of Afghanistan. Obviously, we have better generals than Alexander and are far tougher than the British who held their empire for five hundred years or the Russians, who absorbed forty times our casualties and still defeated Hitler.

[AmyCamus]

85. If I wanted more war, I would've voted for Clinton or McSame.

I call Bullshit, Barrack.

[Mari333]

86. amen!

[ohio2007]

96. The Clintons are back. You didn't see the appointments?

Same change is comming back

[AmyCamus]

103. Not just the Clintons - Bush's Warmonger Gates too.

wtf, Barack?

[IndianaGreen]

87. Afghanistan is already lost, let's pack our bags and bring them all home!

Let's not remain in the role the Russians played trying to keep the Kabul government in power.

[ohio2007]

97. The Kite Runner (trailer)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tm5e6AqrNF8

you should watch it or read the book


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kite_Runner

but,
I'm sure you can see through all that 'propaganda' caused by america's foreign adventures

maybe a comedy is to your liking

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgx5WkwSJzU

[IndianaGreen]

100. War on Taliban cannot be won, says army chief

October 5, 2008

War on Taliban cannot be won, says army chief

Christina Lamb Helmand, Afghanistan

Britain's most senior military commander in Afghanistan has warned that the war against the Taliban cannot be won. Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith said the British public should not expect a “decisive military victory” but should be prepared for a possible deal with the Taliban.

His assessment followed the leaking of a memo from a French diplomat who claimed that Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, the British ambassador in Kabul, had told him the current strategy was “doomed to fail”.

Carleton-Smith, commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade, which has just completed its second tour of Afghanistan, said it was necessary to “lower our expectations”. He said: “We’re not going to win this war. It’s about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that’s not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army.”

The brigadier added: “We may well leave with there still being a low but steady ebb of rural insurgency . . . I don’t think we should expect that when we go there won’t be roaming bands of armed men in this part of the world. That would be unrealistic and probably incredible.”

Carleton-Smith insisted that his forces had “taken the sting out of the Taliban for 2008”. But his brigade has sustained heavy losses in the southern province of Helmand in the past six months, with 32 killed and 170 injured. In an interview with The Sunday Times, he added his voice to a growing number of people arguing that the conflict in Afghanistan could be resolved only through a political settlement that could include the Taliban.

“We want to change the nature of the debate from one where disputes are settled through the barrel of the gun to one where it is done through negotiations,” Carleton-Smith said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4882597...

[ohio2007]

109. So

The British still remember the loss of the Light Brigade two centuries ago.



Barack is not British.


And the US doesn't need the horses to fight that way





The wild card will be China and the ISI.
Does the Pakistani civilian government want to keep their nation together?

[Sex Pistol]

93. Well, he did suggest that he would do just that during the campaign.

So, I suppose the change is that he is actually going to do what he said he was going to do.

[and-justice-for-all]

105. First, Gates has got to go....

and Secondly, what is going to happen with just shuffling troops around the region, is that the 'terrorist' will just relocate as well. As US troop numbers decline in one area, the 'terrorist' will just move there.

What Obama has to do, is a full withdraw from the entire fucking region. We can do reconnaissance and spying without having to involve troops, just pull some back to bases around the area and send the rest home.

[ohio2007]

110. .....

Are you starting the impeach Obama campaign already ?

We broke Iraq....
we stay there until they say leave.

There are people who want Pakistan and India to throw nukes at each other.

Who are they ?

We can do reconnaissance and spying without having to involve troops, just pull some back to bases around the area and send the rest home.

But the CIA is an evil organization that should be shut down..

Can always blame the NWO

[and-justice-for-all]

111. "starting the impeach Obama campaign already ?" Uh, NO

Just because I do not agree does not mean I want him 'impeached'.

I dissent and I am sure Obama would appreciate it.

[Bragi]

112. You wrote:

what is going to happen with just shuffling troops around the region, is that the 'terrorist' will just relocate as well. As US troop numbers decline in one area, the 'terrorist' will just move there.

You need to distinguish between al Qaeda and the Taliban, and not consider them as a single group called "terrorists." Confusing the two is what Bush's Afghan policy is based on.

- B

[snooper2]

113. Good, those fuckers need to be taken out...

Yep...kill them....

The tribal leaders and all the ones who preach hate, the ones taking advantage of farmers, the ones who rape 7 year old girls and make them their wives, the ones who destroyed the buddha statues, the people who are aligned with the ones who attacked us.


Afghanistan has been a fucking disgrace of a country for hundreds of years...and the ones in control of most regions now are the worst of the worst.

[TheLastMohican]

115. What Obama is doing is a big mistake

The Soviets kept there 140 000 troops together with spetsnaz batallions and VDV.
Didn't help them at the end.
Of course we supported the "whathisname with the beard" guy.

Something tells me, we are going to loose much more soldiers and in 3-4 years get out of that medieval hole with "Mission Accomplished" banners inherited from BushCo.