The 'left' didn't ask for a 'war' in Afghanistan. It makes sense to expect that occupation to end.

[bigtree]

I saw the Sat. Nite Live skit last night where the pretend president is listing his challenges and marks the major ones as unfinished or undone. MTP played the clip and Gregory asks the panel to comment, and Maddow says it's ridiculous to expect the president to have ended Bush's wars in less than a year.

Fair enough. There is a reasonable dynamic where the president (and his defenders) are able to deflect criticism of his continued occupations by asserting that it's to be expected that he hasn't 'solved' these military missions.

But, most of the criticism from the left has been about the president's priorities in Afghanistan and Iraq than about some 'success' in whatever military missions the president has planned to pursue. The notion that there is some threat to the U.S. from these occupied nations which needs to be defended against with hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops is far-fetched and misleading. There has been more of a threat from the hapless terror plot the Justice Dept. is prosecuting in the eastern U.S. than from the incidental and opportunistic resistance to the NATO and American assaults across sovereign borders in the Middle East and Asia.

The argument that I understand and accept from the 'left' is that our nation should not be staging these military defenses of either the government of Iraq or Afghanistan with the expectation of some 'political' solution that will bring about the 'elimination' or 'defeat' of al Qaeda. The argument that I've been supporting is that our very military presence and activity in these regions has 'fueled and fostered' violent resistance in these occupied nations in a self-perpetuating cycle of attacks and reprisals. That cycle of violence won't end without the most aggravating element of our foreign invasions removed completely.

The policy of the new president has been to double down (at least in the short term) and dig in (in Iraq), instead of following the logic that our very involvement in these escalated occupations has been folly and counterproductive to the stated goals. Just asserting that the president hasn't 'solved' these military missions ignores the assertions by the opposition to Bush (much of that opposition from the election campaign) that the entire military enterprise in Iraq was bogus and opportunistic, and that 'nation-building in Afghanistan was not a legitimate enterprise for our military forces.

The fact that this president has accepted most of the flawed premises about Bush's military missions and has now set out to make good on them is at the heart of the opposition to continuing in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not a mere point about expecting some 'success' in what the president has embarked on in Iraq and Afghanistan. The point of the opposition is that this president has accepted flawed reasoning for these occupations and is intent on seeing that reasoning through to some expected end. 'We haven't yet furthered 'democracy' in Afghanistan' and the like.

But, the 'left' hasn't asked this president to try and further (or create) democracy behind the force of our military - in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else. We've demanded an END to the military meddling abroad. Looking for some sort of 'success' out of all of this continued militarism is the expectation of our republican opposition, not our liberal left.

[grahamhgreen]

1. Obama and the two narratives.

1) In one narrative (Let's call it the neo-con narrative) America is fighting in Iraqistan in response to 9-11, and to bring democracy the mideast.

2) In the other narrative, the America is fighting in Iraqistan in order for the wealthy war profiteers to make more money from war, arm sales, death, and oil; and to terrify populations into accepting their flawed narrative (#1).

I think #2 is true.

#1 is illogical.

[notesdev]

2. Here's a vid of the skit

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/280038

And I too am wondering where the formerly massive anti-war movement has gone.

Our government has no legal authority to attempt to govern other countries. The authority extends to conducting war, not 'nation-building' (Treasury-draining) operations.

The people who founded this country would be doing a major WTF if they came back and saw how it is run today.

[paulsby]

10. it's partisanship

a fair %age (hardly all) of the anti-war movement are going to be more likely to accept ANY war during a dem regime vs.a repub regime.

just as a fair %age of hawks are LESS likely to support any war during a dem regime vs. a repub regime.

obama, fwiw, has always thought afghanistan was a "good" war. iraq he inherited. it's a bad war in his eyes. in his understanding afghanistan is not bad at all in terms of why we are there, or should we be there. it was only bad because the repubs didn;'t use the right tactics and strategy.

[notesdev]

11. It begs the question

What is the strategy in Afghanistan? Even before that, what is the goal?

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

3. K&R

[stray cat]

4. I don't think we asked for 9-11 either but that didn't have much impact

[Stables2010]

5. Bin laden won the day we landed there and began our revenge campaign

Instead of thinking up fundamental solution to our problems in the M.E, we have, i believe only confused and exacerbated those problems only to the detriment or our military and the country. Bin laden is most satisfied thus far with 9/11

[hfojvt]

6. I think it is more complicated than that

"But, the 'left' hasn't asked this president to try and further (or create) democracy behind the force of our military - in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else. We've demanded an END to the military meddling abroad. Looking for some sort of 'success' out of all of this continued militarism is the expectation of our republican opposition, not our liberal left."

At least there are a number of options

1. Just leave Iraq and Afghanistan
2. Just leave Iraq and focus on Afghanistan
3. Some sort of 'success' in Iraq and Afghanistan
4. Bush's 'stay the course' (whatever the heck that meant)

#1 is the simplest answer and what you seem to be urging here, but I have never been in favor of that. During the primary I read a couple of different 'exit plans' from Kucinich and perhaps Richardson or Biden. None of them involved 'just leaving' although the final result was that we would have been out by now if they had been followed.

For political reasons we must acheive some sort of 'success' in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Culpability for the results in both of those countries falls on Obama and the Democrats heads. The Republicans and the M$M will pound us if we 'fail' there.

What does failure mean? Suppose our troops were home now and two things have happened or were about to happen.

A. Civil war in Iraq explodes and violence there goes back to what it was in 2007.
B. The Taliban are back in control of Afghanistan.

Neither of those look positive to me from either a moral perspective nor a political perspective.

It seems to me that the left ought to be happy about the course in Iraq. First, that violence is way down from 2007. Second that the casualtis of our troops there are way down and third that our troops are being withdrawn ahead of schedule with another 5,000 coming home in October. The glass there is more than half full.

Now Afghanistan is another story.

[bigtree]

7. some responses

The 'culpability' you write of is a political (electoral) calculation which should be set aside like it should be with any other challenging political decision in Congress or the WH.

There are still unacceptable levels of violence in Iraq, but it doesn't necessarily follow that our U.S. troops are the best antidote to all of that. The lack of protection from our forces may well threaten or imperil the Maliki regime, but our nation can't prop up the regime there forever. There will never be a perfect cutting off point, and the upcoming target (the Iraqi elections) is as arbitrary as all of the previous promises of a political outcome over the years which would supposedly release our forces from responsibility. If we're talking about some preservation of 'democracy', the junta we're perpetuating isn't going to lead Iraq there.

'Morality' isn't a zero-sum game in Iraq where the successful imposition of the green-zoned government we've fostered behind the sacrifice of our military forces is the most reasonable or responsible imperative. The entire rationale behind the occupation is flawed and self-defeating to even the security or stability goals expressed by the two administrations. The democracy they seek will come AFTER the imposition of our invading and occupying military forces is removed completely. Any other avenue is a mere posture of 'success' - not a worthy or responsible enterprise for our great nation.

As for Afghanistan, I've seen nothing which would indicate that the Taliban is in any position to control anything other than the provinces where they currently reside. I have advocated a regional group to replace NATO's influence and presence in Afghanistan, like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which would make decisions outside of the U.S. dominated grudge match against the specter of 'al-Qaeda' in the country. I think it's folly to expect the U.S. interests in avenging 9-11 to be in the long-term strategic interests of either Afghanistan or Pakistan.

[TBF]

14. The "left" ought to be happy about Iraq?

I guess we differ in terms of who the left includes - hint - it's not Glenn Beck and his teabaggers. Complete withdrawal from Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan to start and then we start closing bases. We do not need to be in charge of the entire world.

[bigtree]

8. .

[thelordofhell]

9. It takes a Republican to start a war

and it takes a Democrat to stop one.

[harkadog]

12. If you go thru our history of wars

Both parties have started them.

[bigtree]

13. and

a republican ended one




President Gerald R. Ford declares that the Vietnam War “is finished as far as America is concerned” during his Convocation Address. April 23, 1975

[thelordofhell]

16. "They" shot JFK before he could end Vietnam

[thelordofhell]

17. You're right of course. Sorry, I wasn't thinking clearly while I typed

I guess you can call it "A Freeper Lapse".

[Jennicut]

15. Right now, there is a huge internal debate in the administration regarding which direction to go

Some are for more troops, some are against it. I hope Obama listens to the right people...those that say this war needs deescalate.