Obama's willingness to escalate...

[SHRED]

...in Afghanistan troubles me.

Can someone inform me of his game plan regarding the "goal"?
What is the goal?
What is the end game?

----

[babylonsister]

1. Instead of being so concerned, I recommend you go read or

watch his last speech. Here, let me help...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=157931

And here's the short version of "A New Strategy For A New World'...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=157878

[Duder]

53. Good recommendation

They might also read http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4940">Behind Obama and Clinton to get an idea of foreign policy.

[Hope And Change]

2. Remarks of Senator Obama: The War We Need to Win

<snip>

Ending the war(in Iraq) will help isolate al Qaeda and give Iraqis the incentive and opportunity to take them out. It will also allow us to direct badly needed resources to Afghanistan. Our troops have fought valiantly there, but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need—and deserve. As a result, parts of Afghanistan are falling into the hands of the Taliban, and a mix of terrorism, drugs, and corruption threatens to overwhelm the country.

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.

We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military -- it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must seek better performance from the Afghan government, and support that performance through tough anti-corruption safeguards on aid, and increased international support to develop the rule of law across the country.

Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.

Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.

This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that see borders as nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as forces that come and go. There are blood ties deeper than alliances of convenience, and pockets of extremism that follow religion to violence. It's a tough place.

<snip>


more...

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php

[loyalsister]

13. He totally gets it

He understands what has happened in Afghanastan over time. He understands why we would be attacked because he is capable of empathy.
For those who haven't seen it, Charlie Wilson's war gives the timeline of how we got here.
We asked the people in Afghanistan to help us end the cold war by bring down the economy of the Soviet Union as they wasted money on a war we funded.
They took down the russians for us, got no credit, and we left them hanging afterwards. We didn't provide support to help rebuild their country that they deserved after helping us privately.

In terms of organizing, terrorists are not unlike some of the more radical "gangsters" of the US.
I am not sure where the lines are drawn between those who are actually committing the serious offenses and those who simply want to belong.
But, I would suspect that there may be people just like people who join gangs here, who sign up for terrorism and chicken out. Hate mate be a natural response but the actions that follow are not nacessarily automatic.

There are not very many people who would be willing to recognize or understand that, but Obama does.
He sees the terrorists as people.
He understands that the war needs to be dealt just like any area where we see violence in response to oppression.
This is a much deeper understanding of the problem than most leaders are willing to acknowledge or admit. We should be grateful that he is thinking beyong the standard, "shoot enough of 'em, we win, the problem will be solved strategy."


I have learned about this by talking with people who will vote against their own and thair neighbors self interest. Belief in belief is something that is difficult to combat.

[Youphemism]

3. So far, his stated goals have been:

* Defeat the Taliban
* Break up the al-Qaeda forces that have reorganized
* Capture or kill those responsible for 9/11, including Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri.

[SHRED]

6. "Defeat the Taliban"

--

Didn't the Soviet Union try this?

What makes America think they can "defeat" these fighters in that region?

What?? They are going to give up?

Let's not blind ourselves in our arrogance.
The Pashtoons joining with the Taliban can defeat, over time, any opponent in that geographic region of the world.
History has proven this.
They can out wait us forever.

If Obama and/or anyone here thinks that we can subdue that region with force or otherwise is tragically mistaken.

my 2 cents

---

[Youphemism]

10. The Taliban fought off the Soviets with our weapons...

No question they're tough, but we managed to deal with them for years at a much lower cost than the Iraq debacle. It's only because we took our eye off the ball that they're getting a toehold again.

The point is not to allow a group of nuts who run around blowing up things to run the show. That's what they were doing right before 9/11, and nobody did anything.

We don't have to make the area perfect. But we can't let them set up camps where they practice and train folks to crash planes into buildings. It's just not a good idea.

[Occam Bandage]

18. "What makes America think they can "defeat" these fighters in that region?"

The fact that we were doing so until we prematurely declared victory and decided to invade Iraq.

[Marrah_G]

21. If we pull out we should be ready to offer every female in Afghanistan a home here

Once the Taliban is back in charge the women will be forced back into a slavery that treats them worse then farm animals.

[iconicgnom]

30. It's a more complex situation than that, and the US isn't an angelic force fighting for "freedom"

and "democracy" in all these countries it bombs.

For example, read this article:
RAWA communiqué on the International Women's Day, March 8, 2008
Afghan women burn in the inferno of
fundamentalists and invaders
http://www.rawa.org/events/mar8-2008_e.htm

"RAWA from the very first days stated that no country will grant freedom and democracy to another country and today this reality is evident to all. The US disguised the dead rats of yesterday with suits and ties thus released them like wild wolves on our people and are doing nothing about the current crimes, violation of human rights, looting of millions dollars of aid by warlords and corrupt NGOs. If the billions of dollars of aid directed in the name of reconstruction were not poured in the pockets of criminals in the parliament and cabinet, natural hazards like freezing winter would have not taken so many lives today. Even if a small portion of that money was spent for the relief of people, the life conditions of our miserable people, particularly women would have not been so tragic."

[Marrah_G]

66. I don't see us as some angelic force

If Obama can turn things around and put serious effort into rebuilding the infrastructure of Afghanistan and strengthening a government that truly cares about its people then there is hope. If the Taliban regain control of the country there is NO hope.

Our government is being led by criminals and in turn have lined the pockets of criminal around the world.

Pulling out is not the answer. Electing a man more interested in diplomacy and aiding the Afgani's in ways that will improve their lives is our very best hope.

I love the RAWA site and I am very glad to see someone else does also.

[iconicgnom]

86. It's important to read the whole articles on the RAWA site.

Not just the parts that one is already in agreement with and "already knows".

Of course the RAWA articles express their contempt for fundamentalist Islamic gov'ts. And they speak and fight against outside interference from fundamentalist countries like Iran. These women have experienced so-called "liberators" like the Soviets, so know fist hand how "liberations" at the hand of self-described super powers work, on the ground after their own country was targeted and destroyed. These are modern, educated women, in many cases self-educated in spite of incredible odds, and they speak and fight against the enslavement of women with every breath they take. So in all these ways, they're "on the same side" as westerners of a progressive bent, esp. those who work tirelessly toward feminist goals of social equality. The DU type - more or less.

On the other hand "westerners", particulary those who live in the US and have been saturated life-long with US MSM propoganda, are generally fairly clueless regarding the role that US foreign policy has had in the subjection of whole 3rd world populations for the past century, and how accelerated and disastrous that oppression has been after WW2. Westerners are almost clueless about the global economic reasons for US 3rd world interventions, and about how those interventions are for the purpose of reshaping the internal long term economic policies of those countries - in every case for the purpose of handing ownership rights over the natural resources to globalized corporations based in "the west". In fact it's very peculiar that tho' the US has steamrolled over a swath of formerly prosperous democratic countries, installing dictatorships enforcing extreme market economies which devastate the indiginous populations and destroy their middle and working class peoples, the actual US voter generally still believes, somewhere deep down, that the US is a force for democracy and freedom in the world. How peculiar. How peculiar that the US voter thinks there's been some major qualitative difference between the Republicans and Democrats in this regard, when the difference is a fairly minor quantitative one - and the Dems have never come even close to actually "naming the beast".

In any event, although people can't be faulted for good motivations, they really owe it to themselves to be informed. In this case, read the RAWA article
The US and Her Fundamentalist Stooges are
the Main Human Rights Violators in Afghanistan
http://www.rawa.org/events/dec10-07_e.htm

The US hasn't *set up* any infrastructure whatever to push through progressive change through military force. The women of RAWA have said time and again that it's their view that the very notion is self-contradictory. It's a fact that the entire infrastructure of the US military occupations of mid-east countries is designed for purposes of oppressing the populations and putting a lid on free democratic expression of opposition, while funneling vast profits to private corporations and opening the natural resources sector as a playground for US backed corporate plunder. Unfortunately, the torture pits at Bagram, the black hole, are full.

Those who want to help the Afghan people might do better to help through other agencies than the US military machine.

[Marrah_G]

99. The whole world should be involved

But at the same time Nato needs to continue to provide security, as do we, so the Afghani's can get back up on their feet. If all troops pull out then the Taliban will simply take back over by force. Shit, I would be very happy if it we could pull out complete and there were enough nato troops to do the job.

Again, I realize exactly how much my country has contributed to the suffering of the people there. It is something I am ashamed of as an American. But rather then pulling everyone out in January, I would like to see if Obama could help to turn things around there, to help fix some our past mistakes. We owe them that.

Just leaving means an absolute return to complete Taliban rule in a matter of weeks.

I agree with your post. I am trying to look at this from a positive viewpoint. Obama has an opportunity to make a real difference. He is not a *ush and I don't think he will approach the issue like a *ush. At least that is my hope. Maybe I am naive.

[OwnedByFerrets]

37. I agree with you 100 percent...nt

[totodeinhere]

44. Well then what is your solution?

Would you just let the Taliban take over again? That would result in a horrific blood bath. Any woman who was known to have been seen in public without a head scarf would be summarily murdered. And anyone found out to be gay would be either killed or castrated. It would be a nightmare.

[Danger Mouse]

76. We already did, we just didn't finish the job.

We do NOT want the Taliban back in power. They are disgusting.

[BryMan]

19. About freakin time this strategy was followed

7 years wasted by fools in DC, finally we get someone who makes sense, and I think it will play with the public.

We need to make it obvious to those that might try to take a shot at us what the result will be, not go off on wild goose chases like the keystone cops of governing did.

[Historic NY]

4. Its called finishing the job, we've lost more men there this month.

[iconicgnom]

29. oh you! you sound SO much like bush!

[Historic NY]

60. no he pull troop out and there is escalating violence in the country.

if Afghanistan ever gets a chance it will be because we finish then mess we made. * let bin laden escape and now the Taliban are back on the rise.

[iconicgnom]

61. OK, Bush squared, = McCain

[crankychatter]

5. the pashtoons will fight tooth nail and claw unto the tenth generation

...if the taliban is able to portray our increased presence and pakistan incursions as an attack on indigenous people's there?

we will get our MF asses handed to us, just like the Russians

I have "concerns" too

It's eight years to GD late in a way... but he has an excellent point based on the facts we all know...

WTF were we doing invading Iraq?

[kstewart33]

7. His position makes great sense.

We should be fighting there, shouldn't we?

[SHRED]

8. like the Taliban and Pashtoons....

...are going to "give up"?

Gimme a break.


---

[Occam Bandage]

17. It's not a matter of them giving up. They can be marginalized and diminished,

through the simple process of giving Afghans legitimate economic opportunities and defending those opportunities from terror, and the American plan has had success where it has had the resources to succeed (most recently in the field test of Balkh province, where opium production and warlord strength have cratered.) Keep in mind that we nearly succeeded in driving the Taliban from Afghanistan; had we not redirected our attention, money, and people to Iraq we certainly would have.

Guerrilla wars are not won by making the other side give up, they are won by eliminating support for the other side among the general populace. The Afghan people have demonstrated that they are hungry for rule of law. We owe it to them, and to the world, to prove that we can defeat terrorism not through the bombs-from-the-sky Iraq approach, but through building and talking.

[Marrah_G]

22. They cannot be allowed into power there again.

To do so condemns every female there to a fate worse then death.

[Baclava]

24. It's all about the poppy

I know what you're saying.

"Poppies for peace" - that would be my solution to that mess...and we laughed when the Russians gave up over there.

[niceypoo]

9. Killing Bin Laden would be a good goal

...and a fine end game. It would also make the Republicans look like a bunch of whining keystone kop losers, militarily.

When Bush invaded he promised roads, hospitals, schools, etc. in Afghanistan. He immediately reneged on those promises and diverted the money into planning for attacking Iraq. Obama should be the one who delivers. He should win their hearts and minds, something Bush and the neocons have failed miserably.

[DevonRex]

11. The war in Afghanistan is the one we must win. nt

[Connie_Corleone]

12. Read his foreign policy speech.

He's been saying the same thing for years now.

[iconicgnom]

14. Good questions, all. These questions transcend US political parties and international borders.

Sometimes, when we're not flopped on the couch drinking beer and watching the telly, Canadians ask WTF our military is doing there as well. Not often of course, since it's really such little concern :sarcasm:

It was one thing going in there over the objections of the Afghan gov't to take out al Qaeda bases. It's another thing to apply "regime change" logic and force a so-called "western" system down the throats of the general population.

al Qaeda wasn't Afghanistan's gov't, however objectionable we might've found the Taliban fundamentalist regime, how offensive it was to women, in particular. A way to put it in context is, how much more offensive is the Taliban than the despotic Islamic monarchy of Saudi Arabia? Is it more offensive that the Taliban leadership actually practices the religion they enforce whereas King Saud and playboy Prince Bandar and other Bush personal friends don't, but just enforce the extreme fundamentalist Wahhabi religion to oppress the people? Was Afghanistan ever more a hotbed of al Qaeda activity or cells than Saudi Arabia? Is Pakistan *really* an al Qaeda threat, or is it just that in the general war, the general invasion of the occupying powers, the Pashtun people indiginous to that large transnational region tend to stand together in their resistance - having family, economic, social, religious and political ties from time immemorial?

Should we not redefine Bush's bloody war, fine tune it just a LITTLE EFFING BIT, so it actually does target a threat to the "west", rather than the entire religious culture of the middle east?

Oh hell, and bloooeey on the entire mess of an interminable mid-east ideological war based entirely on lies from the get go and which continues to gain support from lie after lie. It's too early in the morning, and I wouldn't want to offend a DUer by indicating that I'm actually concerned about the direction the US might take re. escalating the bloody thing in coming years, taking their sidekick Canada down the trip to Bagram along with it.

[Occam Bandage]

15. His position is great. Afghanistan is the real war--the war that

the Bush folks have tried to pretend Iraq is. Virtually every bogus claim they've made about why we ought fight in Iraq (with of course the exception of WMDs) is a valid reason to defend and rebuild Afghanistan.

[Marrah_G]

23. I agree- as unpopular as it may be here

We must help Afghanistan rebuild and stop the Taliban from taking over and oppressing the people in ways most cannot even imagine.

[bridgit]

16. It's too late: Time Is Of The Essence; one cannot now be in for a penny...

and not in for a pound. To advocate or suspect such parsing...is to seek the annulment of Willy from Nilly. These are answers to questions that should have been *demanded* during the primary season. However, in an America where politicians understand with a great keen-ness that image is preferred over substance clearly that time has come & gone. Being based upon image; image-based now for months on end, I have empathy for the many that no longer recognize the course as laid in.

[stimbox]

20. You are not alone.

The real goal is getting the gas pipeline for unocal like it has always been, just like the goal in iraq was getting the iraq government to sign the oil contracts for the big 5 oil companies.

[LWolf]

25. It's consistent with his overall policies.

He's a hawk. He's always said he would step up the "war on terror."

He DID say that he wasn't against all war, just "dumb" wars, when he pointed out that he "was against Iraq from the beginning."

Even being against a "dumb" war didn't stop him from voting to fund and continue it, repeatedly until the primaries heated up.

If you are hoping for an end to war under an Obama administration, I wouldn't hold my breath.

What is the point of the "war on terror" to begin with? We don't all agree on that, so it's hard to agree on Obama's goal or "end game."

[jody]

26. What is the goal? "Change" What is the end game? "Change" n/t

[jobycom]

31. That's as clear as Bush's goal and endgame. "winning."

They have to mean something, or they mean nothing.

[jody]

39. What's your point? IMO Obama represents "Change" and that means holding him to higher standards than

the Repugs set for President idiot.

Perhaps I misunderstood the point you are making.

[jobycom]

49. That's my point, too, but maybe we see something differently.

I'm not satisfied with "change," I want change that does something. Bush brought us change. We were peaceful and prosperous and alert, and Bush changed that. Change isn't good. Change in the right direction is good.

I want to hold him to a higher standard, too. That starts with asking questions when we have them. So far I don't see change on Afghanistan from Obama's plan, I see the same as we have, only more of it.

[jody]

52. Agree. n/t

[iconicgnom]

27. I'm glad D's aren't chickenhawks like R's, and are standing in line to sign up.

I'd hate to think all the talk the past 7 years about how D's are somehow different was just bullshit.

[jody]

28. Interesting point, will Obama supporters volunteer to go fight in Obama's wars because the moment he

takes the oath as president, every order he gives that puts our troops in harms way is his order and his alone?

[shadowknows69]

33. I'll defend my country just as soon as the Taliban gets here and starts shootin.

[jody]

40. Apparently your answer is "No", you will not volunteer to fight for Obama if he decides to fight

overseas.

[shadowknows69]

42. bingo

The only reason we should have a military is to defend our own country.

[jody]

45. Who do you expect to fight overseas if Obama issues such orders and Obama supporters refuse to

fight for him?

Is your support and the support of like minded Obama followers conditional based on no fighting outside the US?

I'm very curious about this issue because apparently the majority of Obama's supporters oppose fighting outside the US.

That seems paradoxical to campaign for and help elect a candidate based on his/her promise of peace but reject that person as president if he/she becomes aware of factors after becoming president that demands US fighting overseas.

[iconicgnom]

51. That's a gross oversimplification.

Fighting WHAT "outside the US"? Against whole peoples who haven't attacked the US? Or against bases set up for the purpose of training an army that has explicitly declared war on the US? What abut against *possible* bases *possibly* set up for the purpose of training an army that might *possibly* declare war on the US?

Once you go the preemptive route there's no stopping at any twitch of an overactive imagination, and you're at the mercy of people hell-bent on terrorizing you with tales of imaginary enemy actions. Every little word may be brought into play, into the escalating rhetoric of imaginary threats.

Haven't the citizens of the US figured that out, yet?

Is the fighting overseas, outside the US, that's going on now, contra REAL threats to the US, or is it contra insurgents fighting US and NATO armies of occupation?

Is there a point where a legitimate war action, e.g. a NATO action against al Qaeda camps in Tora Bora, becomes a totally illegitimate occupation? Does the US have the right to flat out enslave whole non-US populations in the interests of "preemptive self-defense"? Do US citizens figure that because they have an impressive military machine that no power on earth can stop, they have the right to determine to what extent this that and the other foreign nation should be enslaved to them? Is that the purpose of the ever escalating military spending of the US, even after the cold war ended?

[jody]

54. "gross oversimplification"! The gross thing is people who claim to support a candidate but then

refuse to support him on the most important issue in this campaign, U.S. troops dying in a country that is not a threat to our nation.

IMO it's immoral to let others do the fighting and dying under the orders of a Commander in Chief whom supporters helped elect knowing that as Commander, that person pledged to escalate a war.

[iconicgnom]

57. You're taking a legitimate point of controversy and applying an extreme black/white formula.

So now, you suppose, you think you've found a wedge issue for arguing that people who sympathize with "anti-war" groups shouldn't vote for Obama?

I don't agree, because the issue is already LAID DOWN by the status quo, 8 yrs of the Bush admin, the existence of a Karzai gov't, the existence of obligations to DO RIGHT even when given a situation that's criminally wrong, and to do what's in the US best interest. A lot of cold hard factors.

A black/white formula isn't sufficent to grasp details in a situation where details are of the essence.
My statement "I'm glad D's aren't chickenhawks like R's, and are standing in line to sign up. I'd hate to think all the talk the past 7 years about how D's are somehow different was just bullshit." was intended to spur people to think. It was totally snarky, but I really didn't intend to pass some kind of preemptive judgment on Obama or people who might vote for Obama. Jeez. :eyes:

[jody]

64. Your opinion and mine obviously differ. Apparently very few of Obama's supporters would volunteer to

join our military forces to fight overseas if Obama were commander in chief.

I have no idea what their reasons are but that appears to be a fact.

It's highly probable that during the next administration, the president will be forced to order our military to fight overseas and Obama has pledged to do that in Afghanistan.

The point is very simple, if supporters have enough faith in Obama to help him get elected, they should have enough faith in Obama to volunteer to fight for him.

You can spin that any way you wish but that's just the way it is.

[H2O Man]

65. This is the same horseshit

that you posted as an OP, which was "locked" yesterday.

[jody]

68. Are you one who would not volunteer to fight under Commander in Chief Obama? If not, are you

protesting Obama's pledge to escalate the war in Afghanistan even though you support Obama?

[H2O Man]

79. Silly.

Not to be taken seriously.

[Hoof Hearted]

88. Why? Because you do not want to answer the question. It makes you uncomfortable.

How many times here did the cry go up about neocon chicken hawks? How many times have we said that if the goddamned Republicons loved Bush so much they should be the first in line to go fight for him, or they should send their own children?

Turnabout is both fair play and an expected course of events.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

101. That nincompoop seems to find it impossible to disagree with a candidate's position on one issue

(or on more than one issue for that matter) and still consider that candidate vastly superior to the alternative.

That poster is campaigning against Obama, pure and simple.

[Marrah_G]

67. If I were physically able to I would.

Not for Obama specifically, but for the women of Afghanistan. I think Obama would manage things far better. Bushco fucked up something that could have turned out pretty well.

[jody]

69. Interesting point "I think Obama would manage things far better". Please tell me what military

strategies or tactics do you believe Obama will change in Afghanistan?

"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." (Jam 2:17)

[Marrah_G]

70. Here goes:

I think he understands that more troops are needed to gain control in the areas the Taliban has retaken and to eliminate the poppy trade as much as possible. The poppy's fund the Taliban.

I believe other countries will be far more willing to help if he is President.

I believe he will manage the aid entering the country better and slow the money being given to corrupt officials and companies.

I believe that he will focus on strenthening the Afgan government so a vacuum is not left for the Taliban to fill.

Do I KNOW he will do these things, no. But I am confident he is far more capable then our current Administration, who have fucked things up in truly astounding ways.

[shadowknows69]

71. True that

The level of incompetency in the Bush cartel never ceases to amaze me. Makes the fact they're in power so much more painful.

[jody]

72. Interesting but what military strategies or tactics do you believe Obama will change in Afghanistan?

You express faith that policies will be changed but the only thing that matters to troops in combat are military strategies and tactics and the military doctrine they support.

An answer "I don't know what changes will be made" is acceptable because neither does Obama or his military advisers or anyone else as far as I can determine and that includes me.

As a start, interested people might study COUNTERINSURGENCY (FM 3-24, MCWP 3-33.5) and identify specific changes that Obama would make to that document which says "This field manual/Marine Corps warfighting publication establishes doctrine (fundamental principles) for military operations in a counterinsurgency (COIN) environment. It is based on lessons learned from previous counterinsurgencies and contemporary operations. It is also based on existing interim doctrine and doctrine recently developed."

Whatever changes Obama and his military advisers might make in Afghanistan will affect the cited manual and a myriad of documents right down to the squad level.

My comments above also apply to McCain because he has not said what specific changes in strategy and tactics he would use in Afghanistan to succeed when current methods have failed.

I guess this is where the miracle occurs.

[Marrah_G]

73. You are right, none of us will know until after Jan 09

I have far more faith in Obama then I do in McCain to get things turned around. As most people on Du know I am not a big fan of Obama. However, he seems far more interested in finding real solutions then McCain who is our only other choice.

No one is going to know either candidates specific tactics because they have not come up with them yet. Obama won't be creating the military tactical changes. HOWEVER, he will be the one creating objective and placing military leaders in position to help him reach those goals, they will be the ones coming up with military plans.

Not sure exactly what your argument is here. Are you saying we should do absolutely nothing? Just allow the Taliban to take back over?

[jody]

74. IMO we should let the citizens of a nation determine their own government. The one goal I support

is to enforce the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as much as possible.

Afghanistan is just one of many war-torn countries and I don't see any reason the U.S. will succeed in our current adventure when no foreign power has ever conquered the Afghan tribes.

[Marrah_G]

75. One big problem:

he people of Afghanistan cannot determine their own government without help right now. The problem is the massive amount of money and weapons gained by a small portion of the people through the drug trade. This gives them the power to enslave the majority of their people.

The majority of Afghani's did not enjoy life under Taliban rule, but were powerless to fight back against it. We must help them with a secure place to build their government.

By "we" I do not just mean the US, I feel that the free world must work together to help them.

[jody]

80. Agree but the Taliban reduced opium production, Bush gave them $43 million for their efforts.

I don't know the answer but I doubt that U.S. dominated military intervention will establish a permanent government along western notions of democracy.

[Marrah_G]

81. I think we can agree the Bush family has fucked things up in a big way.

I think the world needs to come together and secure the country long enough for the government there to actually gain some control. Until the drug money is cut off and the Taliban are marginalized nothing there can change. The alternative to finding a solution is to allow the country to once again be oppressed by these monsters and sentence the women to a life of horrific enslavement.

[jody]

82. Agree, I abhor any culture that does not treat all citizens equally.

Have a wonderful day, :hi:

[cliffordu]

62. I'd go to Afghanistan.

[Freddie Stubbs]

100. I attempted to enlist in 2001

But was rejected due to the same medical condition for which I was bounced out of basic training ten years earlier.

[shadowknows69]

32. I'm inclined to be concerned with SHRED

I thought we were mostly in agreement on this board that the WHOLE War on Terror was basically propaganda and BS. The plans to invade Afghanistan and build a nice pipeline there were in existence before 9/11. Bin Laden, assuming he's alive, which I thought that most of us here also agreed he probably isn't, is probably kicking it in Pakistan. Do we need a war? Even if it is the "right" one? Who decides that?

[BlooInBloo]

34. Your concern is noted.

[PurityOfEssence]

35. The goal is to get elected

The endgame is yet to be addressed; such is the way of the expedient.

Why the fuck are we in Afghanistan? Why are we EVEN there? Look at a map: it's landlocked by people who, at best, tolerate us. "Love of Democracy" is a noble thing, but imposing it on a "country" is neither our right nor sensible in the least. We should take a lesson from the British in the nineteenth century and the Soviets in the twentieth: it's a tactical nightmare and a strategic chimera.

Mr. Obama is compensating for being perceived as "weak" and "Muslim"; that's why he has to back Israel with no conditions whatsoever and he has to continue a pointless fight with Islamists. Now, of course, our pitiful masculinity will be hurt if we back down in that part of the world, so Obama has to compensate for personal gain. Think of the lives. Think of the money. Worse still: try to visualize what "winning" would be. Having trouble with this last one? So am I.

What's galling about this is the legion of Obama supporters who will tolerate ANYTHING that this man comes up with. There must be SOME disconnect with the staunch anti-war faction who effectively backed him unequivocally because he was the only one of the three major condenders who didn't vote for the IWR. Maybe not.

We have the right and responsibility to influence the party and its planks this season, and giving a blank check to this folly is not the way.

[SHRED]

36. I agree but with a slight correction

Obama was not a Senator at the time of the "use of force" resolution vote so therefore he never "voted" on it.
If that is what you were implying.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

--

[PurityOfEssence]

47. Believe me, I'm FULLY aware of that, and I question the points from Dean, Clark and Obama supporters

All three of these men have made serious hay about being against this resolution, and none of them ever had to stand to account on the issue. Dean and Clark have VERY dubious ground upon which to stand from comments and advice they made at the time, and Obama was customarily cagy on the subject, speaking about it precisely ONCE at the time, and when a politician in a district where any other position would have been politically dangerous.

[SHRED]

55. you are on it....good job...I agree 100%

[blogslut]

78. More than ONCE

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8

At the time, anyone who spoke against the war was vilified - no matter how Democratic their district was.

[PurityOfEssence]

83. ALL of those clips were from AFTER THE VOTE

It's all very convenient, isn't it? If he was so against it, why didn't he make a big stink before the vote? The Senate Vote was on October 11, 2002.

[blogslut]

85. You are aware that Barack Obama was not a member of the US Senate then, right?

But go ahead. Pick your nits. I hear it's a profession in the U.K..

[PurityOfEssence]

89. Yes. Can't you read? He's a candidacy is mostly based on speculation.

Look at the sub-thread above.

He, like Dean and Clark, sell us on "what he would have done", even when that is far from clear, and in the instances of the latter two, quite open to doubt.

His policies are founded on our trust and faith in him changing his risk-averse, all-things-to-all-people habits and suddenly turn on the corporatists he's so obediently enabled. He ducked the Sense of the Senate on Iran, but then has the chutzpah to attack Hillary for her vote for it. He repeatedly voted "present" on abortion votes to curry favor, and now is very public in making sure the right-to-lifers know that he supports certain restrictions. He promises championing the little guy, then votes against capping credit card interest at 30%.

The people who seem to think he voted against the war are his supporters, not me. He wasn't there at the time and he was studiously silent on the subject at the time except when it was to his advantage to speak. He's been quite dependable in his voting to keep the incursions funded, hasn't he?

He's against handguns when it suits him and for them when that changes.

It's a faith-based candidacy: we have to TRUST him that all this shilly-shallying and accommodation will change when elected. Suddenly, he'll change his habits of 12 years and be a champion for the little guy. Suddenly he'll make us all happy in all our heartfelt dreams.

Fine. We're stuck with him and we need to rally around the party's choice, but one of the true evocations of such support is to stop him from continuing with his mealy-mouthed, two-faced appeasement; he's going to be called out on it and he's going to be painted as precisely what he's claimed he's against: a slippery "old-style" politician bent on nothing more than personal advancement.

Enough's enough; he's got a RESPONSIBILITY to us to behave himself and stand for something beyond deliberately vague emotional and wistful yearnings. We don't owe HIM, he owes US.

This is ridiculous, and people are starting to see this--which some of us have been warning about for a year now--in a big way. We owe it to ourselves to influence this reckless and sloppy campaign to get its act together post haste. Those of us who don't have the entire rest of the world on sanctimonious and blissful "ignore" aren't the least bit surprised that he's effectively dead even with a true stiff of a candidate. That's appalling.

With so very much of his candidacy based on our faith in his integrity, he will crash and burn in a Spitzeresque curtain-call at some not-so-remote incident where he can't dodge a question. We deserve better.

He's been so lucky with his Hillaryish dance of double-dealing for so very long that he thinks he can continue with the same schtick and get away with it. Now he's under the magnifying glass and it's time to see if this pony has more than the one trick.

[Beacool]

96. Bravo!!!

Finally someone who sees the light and the hypocrisy of his stance against the war when he voted to finance it every step of the way once he was in the senate. He chastised Hillary endlessly about the IWR vote and proclaimed his better "judgment", but he intends to escalate US presence in Afghanistan. Great, we may leave Iraq to continue the fight in Afghanistan. Will the troops that he eventually plans to withdraw from Iraq be sent to Afghanistan?

He has tapped danced faster than Fred Astaire since he's gotten the nomination. How many more "adjustments" will he make before the election? To many his vote on FISA was the straw that broke the camel's back.

:applause:

[blindpig]

98. That's a pretty slim thread that you're hanging your hope on. n/t

[Skittles]

48. you know it, Purity

:thumbsup:

[jody]

50. Agree. Sad that Obama supporters won't volunteer to fight in Afghanistan leaving that deadly job to

others, probably with inadequate equipment because DoD budgets are too low.

If Obama supporters refuse to volunteer to fight in Afghanistan, IMO they have a moral duty to rise up in angry protest against Obama's pledge to escalate the fighting in Afghanistan.

[sniffa]

94. So, are you volunteering then?

:shrug:

[Egnever]

103. you repeat over and over obama supporters

as if you aren't one.

[Egnever]

102. I think you confuse anti war

With anti Iraq war. There are plenty of us out here that saw the Iraq war for the debacle that it is long before we ever went in and have been fighting it since but had no problem with the invasion of Afghanistan to get at al-queda.

People such as yourself who are apparently anti any war of course confuse us with themselves over and over. I trust obamas judgment as it echoes my own over and over. Including his recent responses on what he believes should happen in Afghanistan.

You can cry about how galled you are at Obama supporters who agree with him as if we are somehow so enamored of him we don't understand what he is saying but the only one you would be fooling is yourself. The majority of people on this board are quite informed on what Obama is saying and what he believes in so much so that many of us aren't taken in by the media talking points that he is somehow turning into a hawk. We knew exactly what he was going into this and agree with him!

Shocking and perhaps galling to you as it is.

[OwnedByFerrets]

38. The bottom line.....

and what I have learned from being here for some time is: It doesnt matter what we think or what we want. If something in DC goes our way, its purely circumstance, not of our doing. We can sit here in front of our computers all day long, every day and pretend that we make a difference, but we do NOT. If you disagree, fine, but I believe that to be the truth.
Does that make me a quitter? NO. I wont quit, but I am finished with lying to myself that "I" make a difference.

[jody]

41. I agree. n/t

[totodeinhere]

43. I agree with Obama on this.

The world cannot allow the Taliban to take control of Afghanistan again. But Obama will do it the right way by fully cooperating with our allies. And he will scrupulously follow the Geneva Convention.

[jody]

46. Does the Geneva Convention permit the U.S. to occupy Afghanistan? n/t

[Zynx]

58. That pertains to the treatment of soldiers, not the occupation of a country.

Besides, many nations have troops in Afghanistan, including several opponents of the Iraq War. Your position makes little sense.

[sniffa]

59. No, it's covered by SALTII

[sniffa]

56. .

[goodgd_yall]

63. This isn't news to you is it?

In every primary debate he's said we dropped the ball on Afghanistan and need to bring stability there instead of wasting time, energy, and money in Iraq. I agree with him.

[Danger Mouse]

77. The 'goal' is not to let the Taliban take power again.

[sniffa]

95. I expect you to sign up tomorrow then

This thread is the equivalent of a jack-off contest.

[Better Believe It]

104. Well, You Go Over And Protect The Right-Wing Dictatorship In Afghanistan

I won't.

[polichick]

84. It's not about escalation, it's about finishing the job we set out to do...

...before Bush & Co. hijacked the mission for personal reasons.

[mmonk]

87. We are faced with having to destroy that with which we

and Pakistan created. It's why we didn't need Iraq on top of it. There aren't any good options. We chose overt imperialism and now we have to deal with it.

[The Leveller]

90. What right does the US have to be in Afghanistan?

The United States is in violation of international law by being in Afghanistan (and elsewhere). For Obama to iterate what he has he places a veneer, a validation, upon what is quite simply and quite clearly a violation of accepted norms of international law.

There is nothing complicated about this.

[Straight Shooter]

92. The U.S. doesn't need a steenkin' permission slip from anyone to go to war anywhere.

:sarcasm:

Nicely summarized post.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[stimbox]

91. Obama is going to escalate the war in Afghanistan like LBJ did in Vietnam.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3651829

[sniffa]

93. This thread is still going

[TheKentuckian]

97. Look if you buy 9/11 at all

then it's pretty clear we can't have boot camps training the next waves that practice on nearby governments.

If you think 9/11 was a hoax perpetrated on the American people and the world then obviously we're just in it for some instant gratification. Otherwise, it's logical preservation of pax americana.

If you're looking for a dove then you didn't really have a candidate. No way you elected or even become a serious candidate repudiating 9/11 as a terrorist action, which leads inevitably to doing something about it.

Operating on the premise this is a real threat, military action is about the only option. There's no one to bribe, isolate, establish trade with, embargo, or negotiate with. You're stuck with defeating their ability to mount attacks in organized fashion. Which leads us back to the the original intent of military action and the fact that the incompetents in the Bush Administration threw American safety, international interests, and our economy in the toilet fighting a stupid war in the wrong country.

[blues90]

105. for all those here so willing to win in Afghanistan

Those who are still young enough why not go join up for the big win if you feel this is even close to possible? How about Obama re-instate the draft?

After all it does appear there are people here with all the big talk who back Obama all the way no matter what.