Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

3 Top Obama Advisers Favor Adding Troops in Afghanistan

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
lanlady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 08:47 AM
Original message
3 Top Obama Advisers Favor Adding Troops in Afghanistan
Source: New York Times

November 11, 2009
3 Top Obama Advisers Favor Adding Troops in Afghanistan

By ELISABETH BUMILLER and DAVID E. SANGER
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton are coalescing around a proposal to send 30,000 or more additional American troops to Afghanistan, but President Obama remains unsatisfied with answers he has gotten about how vigorously the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan would help execute a new strategy, administration officials said Tuesday.

Mr. Obama is to consider four final options in a meeting with his national security team on Wednesday, his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, told reporters. The options outline different troop levels, other officials said, but they also assume different goals — including how much of Afghanistan the troops would seek to control — and different time frames and expectations for the training of Afghan security forces.

Three of the options call for specific levels of additional troops. The low-end option would add 20,000 to 25,000 troops, a middle option calls for about 30,000, and another embraces Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s request for roughly 40,000 more troops. Administration officials said that a fourth option was added only in the past few days. They declined to identify any troop level attached to it.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/world/asia/11policy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss



Say Obama, about that Nobel Peace Prize...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
1. More troops are going, no doubt about it.
Stupid and wasteful. Wars without end....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SandWalker1984 Donating Member (533 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
21. It appears the Pentagon has already decided on a very long war
Pentagon Pouring Your Money Into Afghanistan: Are They Preparing for a Very Long War?

By Nick Turse, Tomdispatch.com
Posted on November 9, 2009
Alternet.org

In recent weeks, President Obama has been contemplating the future of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. He has also been touting the effects of his policies at home, reporting that this year's Recovery Act not only saved jobs, but also was "the largest investment in infrastructure since Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s." At the same time, another much less publicized U.S.-taxpayer-funded infrastructure boom has been underway. This one in Afghanistan.

While Washington has put modest funding into civilian projects in Afghanistan this year -- ranging from small-scale power plants to "public latrines" to a meat market -- the real construction boom is military in nature. The Pentagon has been funneling stimulus-sized sums of money to defense contractors to markedly boost its military infrastructure in that country.

In fiscal year 2009, for example, the civilian U.S. Agency for International Development awarded $20 million in contracts for work in Afghanistan, while the U.S. Army alone awarded $2.2 billion -- $834 million of it for construction projects. In fact, according to Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, the Pentagon has spent "roughly $2.7 billion on construction over the past three fiscal years" in that country and, "if its request is approved as part of the fiscal 2010 defense appropriations bill, it would spend another $1.3 billion on more than 100 projects at 40 sites across the country, according to a Senate report on the legislation."

Bogged Down at Bagram

Nowhere has the building boom been more apparent than Bagram Air Base, a key military site used by the Soviet Union during its occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. In its American incarnation, the base has significantly expanded from its old Soviet days and, in just the last two years, the population of the more than 5,000 acre compound has doubled to 20,000 troops, in addition to thousands of coalition forces and civilian contractors. To keep up with its exponential growth rate, more than $200 million in construction projects are planned or in-progress at this moment on just the Air Force section of the base. "Seven days a week, concrete trucks rumble along the dusty perimeter road of this air base as bulldozers and backhoes reshape the rocky earth," Chuck Crumbo of The State reported recently. "Hundreds of laborers slap mortar onto bricks as they build barracks and offices. Four concrete plants on the base have operated around the clock for 18 months to keep up with the construction needs."

The base already boasts fast food favorites Burger King, a combination Pizza Hut/Bojangles, and Popeyes as well as a day spa and shops selling jewelry, cell phones and, of course, Afghan rugs. In the near future, notes Pincus, "the military is planning to build a $30 million passenger terminal and adjacent cargo facility to handle the flow of troops, many of whom arrive at the base north of Kabul before moving on to other sites." In addition, according to the Associated Press, the base command is "acquiring more land next year on the east side to expand" even further.

To handle the influx of troops already being dispatched by the Obama administration (with more expected once the president decides on his long-term war plans) "new dormitories" are going up at Bagram, according to David Axe of the Washington Times. The base's population will also increase in the near future, thanks to a project-in-progress recently profiled in The Freedom Builder, an Army Corps of Engineers publication: the MILCON Bagram Theatre Internment Facility (TIF) currently being built at a cost of $60 million by a team of more than 1,000 Filipinos, Indians, Sri Lankans, and Afghans. When completed, it will consist of 19 buildings and 16 guard towers designed to hold more than 1,000 detainees on the sprawling base which has long been notorious for the torture and even murder of prisoners within its confines.

While the United States officially insists that it is not setting up permanent bases in Afghanistan, the scale and permanency of the construction underway at Bagram seems to suggest, at the least, a very long stay. According to published reports, in fact, the new terminal facilities for the complex aren't even slated to be operational until 2011.

One of the private companies involved in hardening and building up Bagram's facilities is Contrack International, an international engineering and construction firm which, according to U.S. government records, received more than $120 million in contracts in 2009 for work in Afghanistan. According to Contrack's website, it is, among other things, currently designing and constructing a new "entry control point" -- a fortified entrance -- as well as a new "ammunition supply point" facility at the base. It is also responsible for "the design and construction of taxiways and aprons; airfield lighting and navigation aid improvements; and new apron construction" for the base's massive and expanding air operations infrastructure. The building boom at Bagram (which has received at least a modest amount of attention in the American mainstream press) is, however, just a fraction of the story of the way the U.S. military -- and Contrack International -- are digging in throughout Afghanistan.

Rave Reviews for Kandahar

In March, according to Pentagon documents, Contrack was awarded a $23 million contract for "the design and construction of Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance ramp, Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan." Last year, in the Washington Post, Pincus reported that a planned expansion at the airfield, also once used by the Soviets and now a major U.S. and NATO base, was to accommodate aircraft working for a Task Force ODIN -- an Afghanistan-based version of the Army unit which used drones and helicopters to target insurgents planting IEDs in Iraq. Today, Task Force ODIN-Afghanistan -- the acronym stands for "observe, detect, identify and neutralize," with a nod to the chief Norse god -- is up and running, and still reportedly piloted out of "Bagram in one of two small, nondescript ground control stations." Whether ODIN aircraft are also operating out of Kandahar Airfield is -- like so much information about the U.S. military in Afghanistan -- unclear. Certainly, though, many more NATO and U.S. aircraft will be flying out of the base once Contrack, as it notes on its website, completes its "esign and construction of replacement runways with asphalt and touch down areas with concrete pavement" and "rehabilitation of 6 existing taxiways," among other projects.

Contrack's Kandahar contract is set to be fulfilled by late December, but like Bagram, the base already gives every appearance of permanence. "It's one of the busiest single runways in the world," Captain Max Hanlin from the 2nd U.S. Army Division's 5th Stryker Brigade told Agence France-Presse recently. Originally built to house 12,000 troops, Kandahar Air Base now supports 30,000 or more NATO and U.S. personnel. Some do battle in the inhospitable terrain of the surrounding region, while others have never been outside the wire and wile away their time in the base's cafes and small shops (where troops reportedly can buy, among other items, belly dancer costumes), party in the "Dutch corner," play roller hockey in the base's central square, or dance the night away at a Saturday rave. "They are shaking glowsticks as if they have no concept of the mines and the war outside," said one U.S. officer, watching troops on the dance floor.

In recent days, U.S. forces announced a decrease in recreational perks and an imposition of more austere circumstances -- salsa and karaoke nights have already been cut at Kandahar -- prompting worries by NATO allies that their recreational facilities will be overrun by entertainment-starved U.S. troops.

A Mob of FOBs

It seems that no one outside the Pentagon knows just exactly how many U.S. camps, forward operating bases, combat outposts, patrol bases and other fortified sites the U.S. military is currently using or constructing in Afghanistan. And while the Americans have recently abandoned a few of their installations, effectively ceding the northeastern province of Nuristan to Taliban forces, elsewhere a base-building boom has been underway.

In April, Contrack was awarded another $28 million contract for work on airfields -- to be performed at unspecified sites in Afghanistan. In June, Florida-based IAP Worldwide Services was awarded a $21 million contract to enhance electrical power distribution at the U.S. Marines' still-growing Forward Operating Base (FOB) Leatherneck in Helmand Province, a Taliban stronghold. Scheduled for completion in June 2010, that project is only part of IAP's work, which has involved "almost two dozen power plants at U.S. Army bases in Afghanistan and Iraq" that, according to the company's promotional literature, its teams have "delivered, installed, operated and maintained."

FOB Dwyer, also in Helmand Province, is fast becoming a "hub" for air support in southern Afghanistan, according to Captain Vincent Rea of the Air Force's 809th Expeditionary Red Horse Squadron. To that end, Marine Corps and Air Force personnel are building runways and helipads to accommodate ever more fixed-wing and rotary aircraft on the base. The two services collaborated on the construction of a 4,300-foot airstrip capable of accommodating giant C-130 Hercules transport aircraft that increase the U.S. capability to support more troops on more bases in more remote areas.

"With the C-130s coming in more frequently, more Marines can travel at a given time and will definitely help Camp Dwyer and other FOBs and COPs (Combat Outposts) to build up," says Capt. Alexander Lugo-Velazquez of Marine Light/Attack Helicopter Squadron 169. In September, the Air Force reported the completion of the first phase of a six-phase construction project at FOB Dwyer which will eventually include additional fuel pits and taxiways, increased tarmac space, and the lengthening of the runway to 6,000 feet. In October, according to government documents, the Army also began soliciting bids -- in the $10-$25 million range -- for construction of fuel storage and distribution facilities at FOB Dwyer. These, like the infrastructure upgrades at Bagram, are not scheduled to be completed until sometime in 2011.

In Helmand, as well as Farah, Kandahar, and Nimruz provinces, between June and September the Marine Expeditionary Brigade-Afghanistan alone established four new forward operating bases, "10 combat outposts, six patrol bases, and four ancillary operating positions, helicopter landing zones and an expeditionary airfield." In October, defense contractor AECOM Technology signed a $78 million, 6-month extension contract with the Army to "provide general-support maintenance as well as the operation of maintenance facilities, living quarters and offices at two U.S. military bases as well as forward operating bases and satellite locations" in Afghanistan.

Defense contracting giant Fluor has also been hard at work landing lucrative deals in Afghanistan. In March, the Army reported that, in accordance with President Obama's spring surge of troops, Regional Command East in Afghanistan had tasked Fluor to expand four existing forward operating bases and, if need be, build another eight new ones.

In Regional Command South, it was reported that "mergency work to expand eight FOBs s underway after being competitively awarded to Fluor under LOGCAP IV." This is the current version of a military program first instituted by the Pentagon in 1985. It has been the key means by which military logistics and supply functions have been turned over to private contractors. (The previous version of the program, LOGCAP III, was awarded solely to Kellogg, Brown and Root Services or KBR, then a division of the oil services giant Halliburton, primarily in support of U.S. operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait and was plagued by scandals.)

In Afghanistan, companies like Fluor are clearly digging in. Fluor, in fact,describes itself as "co-located with the U.S. Army in Afghanistan, where the team coordinates, provides oversight, and implements Fluor's execution plan to provide the necessary resources and labor to accomplish this mission" of "providing multi-functional base life support and combat services support (CSS) to the U.S. and Coalition Forces in Afghanistan."

The company is "simultaneously constructing and managing the expansion of eight Forward Operating Bases<...> in Southern Afghanistan. This includes the construction of an FOB to accommodate 17,000 to 20,000 U.S. Military personnel." Fluor, no doubt, expects to be "co-located with the U.S. Army in Afghanistan" for a long time. In July 2009, the defense giant was awarded a $1.5 billion contract for LOGCAP IV services in Afghanistan; in October, the Army reported that the LOGCAP program was responsible for erecting 6,020 units of containerized housing known as relocatable buildings or RLBs in Regional Command South.

In July, under an existing LOGCAP IV contract, scandal-tainted defense contractor DynCorp International, along with partners CH2M Hill and Taos Industries, received a one year $643.5 million order to "provide existing bases within the Afghanistan South AOR with operations and maintenance support, including but not limited to: facilities management, electrical power, water, sewage and waste management, laundry operations, food services and transportation motor pool operations," as well as "construction services for additional sites." With an eye to the future, the Pentagon has included four one-year options in the contract which, if taken up, would be worth an estimated $5.8 billion.

Just recently, the Australian military indicated it was also digging in for a long stay, announcing a $37 million upgrade of its main base near Tarin Kowt in Oruzgan province, to be completed by mid-2011. As at other NATO facilities, increasing numbers of U.S. troops have been operating out of Tarin Kowt recently and, in late September, the U.S.-based company Kandahar Constructors signed a $25 million deal with the Pentagon for runway upgrades there, also to be completed in 2011.

Speaking the Language of Occupation

In 2009 alone, after many billions of dollars had already gone into the construction, expansion, and maintenance of U.S. bases in Afghanistan, American taxpayers were called upon to pay for more than $1 billion in construction contracts -- and based on the evidence at hand, including those future options, this may prove just a drop in the proverbial bucket.

All of this has been happening without a clear plan laid out in Washington for the future of U.S. military operations in that country, without a legitimate national government in Kabul, and of course with no shortage of infrastructural repairs needed at home. Americans curious to know much of anything about the Pentagon's Afghan building boom beyond Bagram would have found little on the nightly news or in major newspapers. It has essentially been carried out in the dark, far away, and with only the most modest reportorial interest.

Forget for a moment the "debates" in Washington over Afghan War policy and, if you just focus on the construction activity and the flow of money into Afghanistan, what you see is a war that, from the point of view of the Pentagon, isn't going to end any time soon. In fact, the U.S. military's building boom in that country suggests that, in the ninth year of the Afghan War, the Pentagon has plans for a far longer-term, if not near-permanent, garrisoning of the country, no matter what course Washington may decide upon. Alternatively, it suggests that the Pentagon is willing to waste taxpayer money (which might have shored up sagging infrastructure in the U.S. and created a plethora of jobs) on what will sooner or later be abandoned runways, landing zones and forward operating bases.

The building and fortifying of bases in Afghanistan isn't the only sign that the U.S. military is digging in for an even longer haul. Another key indicator can be found in a Pentagon contract awarded in late September to SOS International, Ltd., a privately owned "operations support company" that provides everything from "cultural advisory services" to "intelligence and counterintelligence analysis and training" to numerous federal agencies. That contract, primarily for linguistic services in support of military operations in Afghanistan, has an estimated completion date of September 2014.



View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/143819/

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unhappycamper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
2. The low end is 20,000 more soldiers into the meat grinder?
:wtf: is that man thinking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just-plain-Kathy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
30. As far as wars goes...Republicans are gun-hoe to feed the war profiteers,
where Democrats act as if they're thoughtful and want to act humane...THEN they feed the war profiteers.

I'm so sick of it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
classysassy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #30
32.  Thats gung ho
A Chinese word,full of gusto,lets get it on,or as Bush said "bring it on".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. I hope he tells Hillary to stuff it on this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
45. Coming from you, that shows how strongly you feel about this!
(though in fairness, the reports on HRC may be wrong)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lazer47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
4. It is at a point of conundrum,, You either add more troops and survive
or bring them all home,,, Johnson faced the same situation in '66,,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bragi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Yep, and Johnson's escalation proved to be the wrong decision /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lazer47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. I'M not sure his decision was wrong, Just the way it was implemented
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pattmarty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. I think you better fucking "elaborate" on that statement. I don't particular..........
...........care for "revisionist amateur historians".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lazer47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. "revisionist amateur historians".??? Define Amateur
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pattmarty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #15
28. Ha, ha, ha, ha..........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YouTakeTheSkyway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
24. What's with the quotations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bigmack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Oh, No... tell me you're not one of those...
guys who think that clusterfuck was winnable if the US would have just done it differently somehow?

We sent a total of 3 million soldiers and Marines there over the years, sometimes 500,000 were in the country at the same time. We had control of the air, helicopters, tanks, unlimited supplies, all the ammo we could use, and modern technology. We outnumbered North Vietnam more than 100 to 1. They lost 1 million soldiers and 2 million civilians. South Vietnam lost about 200,000 soldiers and 1 million civilians. We lost 58,000 dead and another 150,000 wounded.

And we came in second.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lazer47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. NO NO NO,, We were about to get our asses kicked and a lot of people would have been
KIA, if they had not of sent more troops,, it only postponed it 2 yrs until TET of '68,,They were not going to bring us home so they had to send troops to keep down losses. Cluster fuck?? Yes,, glad I am alive?? even more so..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pattmarty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #11
29. Very well said. I believe that takes of my "amateur revisionist historian"..
......remarks from an earlier post. Thank you, VERY well said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
36. OMG! We lost 30,000 of the 58,000 soldiers AFTER the escalation. It was disaster. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
46. Have you read Fog of War that details MacNamara's views on thsi?
It is not clear there was a "right" way to implement the war in Vietnam. It was a Civil War, where we back the people who had benefited during the colonial regime. These were westernized and, in many cases, Catholics who spoke French as well as Vietnamese. The government was corrupt and was despised by parts of the population.

Did you read Kerry's comments in Newsweek? Kerry meant every word that he said before the Senate. When he spoke of the leaders abandoning the soldiers, it was personal. He knew some of them personally. His college roommate was the nephew of MacGeorge Bundy. Kerry was unique in being the intelligence, moral person he was, with a background of having talked about diplomacy with his dad since he was a pre-teen. Now, he has added 24 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The revisionists have tried to say had they only done more, we could have won. The fact is we drops more tons of bombs on Vietnam than were dropped over all of Europe in WWII and we also sprayed huge parts of the country, year after year, with agent orange - something not done in Europe. Many US servicemen have dealt with cancers and birth defects in their children that were caused by agent orange. The soldiers were mostly there for one year. The Vietnamese lived with that contamination for years. You will notice that none of the revisionist accounts mention the Christmas bombings in December 1972 (Here is a link of a Kissinger attempt to justify it (thus the title) - the fact is that the terms the US got were about the same offered to LBJ in 1968 - so take Kissinger with a grain of salt.) The LOWEST estimate of Vietnamese deaths was 1 million - many sources are three times that high.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pattmarty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Good point. AND, look what it did to an otherwise "great" presidency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pattmarty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
7. This could be the final straw with liberal support of "Bill" Obama...........
......Any little bit of pressure and it seems he "caves".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
37. If Obama escalates, I don't care if "Satan" is his GOP challenger, I will NOT vote for Obama.
I'm gladly throwing my vote away to Kucinich. Yes, hate me all you want, but 2012 will be the FIRST time that I fully vote with my conscious for the USA Presidency. Why? It doesn't matter HOW WE VOTE, a few people within the ruling corporate duopoly make all the decisions for us.

A more benevolent despot is always better than a less benevolent one, but despotism it remains all the same. Can we pretend otherwise any longer?

The coming darkness is the eclipse of American political freedom and the unchecked reign of a venal, arrogant, and ignorant ruling class. Onerous as its depredations at home are likely to be, even more ominous is its immoral, illegal, and criminal policy of preemptive war abroad -- a policy fully endorsed by Kerry. There is no end to the war on terrorism, since a terrorist is increasingly defined as anyone who opposes the duopoly at home or abroad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #37
47. Kerry NEVER endorsed preemptive war
I guess you missed the many times he spoke of war only as a last resort. The fact of the matter is that a President Kerry would not have gone to war in 1991 or in 2003.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
10. arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!
:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
12. This is why I DIDN'T want Lieberman in a skirt to be Sec of State - she has the power to
tilt any decision towards the hawk position she has long favored. She also has the power to undermine any diplomatic measures preferred by WH in order to gain upperhand for the hawks. Who knows what she is saying behind closed doors?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lib2DaBone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #12
25. I agree.. she was/is a terrible choice for SOS...
as was Robert Gates for Secy of Defense.. a Bush-Bot all the way.

Obama disappointed with those choices.. as with the Geithner Goldman Sacs gang.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
13. Ah, Yes, the Three Stooges Have Been Reconstituted
It should be a barrel of laughs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. Waiting to see all the 'isn't HRC the best SoS' posters show up on this thread.
Edited on Wed Nov-11-09 10:43 AM by blm
But, I think they have so far managed to avoid the real hard truths about her positions while they wrap themselves around all the feelgood and fluff pieces that have been generated in the corpmedia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmosh42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
17. And the objective is.....democracy like Iraq? WTF! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #17
49. President Obama has not said the goal is "democracy"
He has defined it in much more limited ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
18. The back and forth bullshit is what bugs me the most. Just fucking do it.
We know the MIC and the corporations behind it rules the world now and we know escalation is inevitable. Just get it over with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #18
35. That's what a lot of people said leading up to the IRAQI invasion.
That action didn't work out so well for us. We need to draw down and get the hell out of the Middle East.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. Maybe you didn't notice the cynicism. That's what I want too.
But it's not happening. The resource wars are fully underway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. Sorry, today I suck at nuance.
:blush: :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SandWalker1984 Donating Member (533 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
19. Of course they do, they won't have to do the fighting
In a grim November 3rd Wall Street Journal piece (buried inside the paper), Yochi Dreazen reported record suicide rates for a stressed-out U.S. Army.

Sixteen soldiers killed themselves in October alone, 134 so far this year, essentially ensuring that last year’s “record” of 140 suicides will be broken.

This represents a startling 37 percent jump in suicides since 2006 and, for the first time, puts the suicide rate in the Army above that of the general U.S. population.



Afghanistan isn't about a war on terror, it's about pipelines, poppies and profits. Huge profits. Our men and women in the military don't deserve to be used this way in the name of profits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InfiniteThoughts Donating Member (322 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
20. stay in afghanistan ... increase troops ...
stay in Afghanistan& increase troops BUT these are my conditions:

1. US will ask Karzai & his corrupt government to step down ASAP. Afghanis will elect their new government within the next 3 months.

2. Rural Afghanistan is a completely different world. They want the rest of the world to stay out of their business & in return, Rural Afghanistan will mind it's own. A decentralized governance structure empowering (not with weapons!) the rural heads would go a long way in solving Afghan's issues.

3. What is Afghan going to survive on? Iraq has oil? $10 bn in infra investment in Afghanistan will be 10x better than $100 bn in defense spend (we know that already!)

4. Ensure Pakistan stays out of Afghanistan. Pakistan is poison & even a drop of it, spoils everything else.

5. Afghanistan has some mind-numbing places. Tourism should be encouraged. For that, the first step is to build tourist infrastructure.

6. US will focus on AQ. All non-AQ fighters will receive monetary compensation & reconciliation if they appear before a truth commission that US will aid in setting up. US takes the objective of going after & exterminating AQ cells & OBL.

7. US will reach out to the Islamic world to contribute 1/4th the total number of troops in Afghanistan.

8. US will reach out to China, India, Russia, NATO to train 10k policemen each in 3 years. Together with US training 10k, Afghanistan will have 50k police force in 3 years.

==============

Meet these eight preconditions & i am sure we can see more troops to Afghanistan. The way i see it, if we do these eight, we will see soldiers of all countries returning back to their soil & Afghanistan will breathe free air!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jus_the_facts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
22. No matter what the people who elected him wanted? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
23. This is STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dumb Stupid Idiotic

you could put a million troops in and still loose

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YouTakeTheSkyway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #23
40. That depends on how they're used...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
change_notfinetuning Donating Member (750 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
26. Time for 3 new top advisers, Lyndon W. Obama! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #26
48. As President Obama has NOT made the decision to listen to the
General in charge and his secretaries of state and defense, maybe you should hold up on the renaming. It is actually impressive that so far he is standing against the unified position of these three top people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
27. send their kids.
put them on the front lines first.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hollowdweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #27
50. Insist the buildup be paid for with increased taxes.

If we aren't going to reinstitute the draft the public has to have some stake in the war.

If the costs of war were paid by a tax paid by everyone working then people would have an interest in it and might not be so gung ho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just-plain-Kathy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
31. K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
classysassy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
33. When will those people
learn from history,Russia lost there,Alexander the great didn't conquer that country,are our leaders so blind or is it they refuse to see,because of the $$$$$$$$ blinds them?.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. I'll believe in their true sincerity if THESE advisers jerk their own KIDS out of their
Edited on Wed Nov-11-09 03:35 PM by ShortnFiery
cushy stateside nepotistic jobs and have them enlist in either the Military Police or the Infantry. Deploy their OWN CHILDREN over to Afghanistan, then "I'll believe in the mission." :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YouTakeTheSkyway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #33
41. Are those historical examples particularly relevant?
After all, this is a different situation, involving different motivations, technologies, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlyByNight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
38. I thought it was a "peace" prize, not a "piece" prize...
that the president was awarded.

I wonder how many pipeline-laden, poppy-laden "pieces" Afghanistan will be carved into? This isn't about bin Laden anymore as the republic/empire continues to bleed American lives and treasure, and Afghan civilians in order to justify an obscene military/empire maintenance budget.

The voices of history are screaming in their ears and they can't (won't?) hear a fucking thing. So much for change, eh? This isn't what I voted for.

Lyndon Baines Obama?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
42. how about we send the Advisors there
cowards telling others to die for lies
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Algorem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
43. advisors schmadvisors.
Edited on Wed Nov-11-09 07:55 PM by Algorem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC