So, you support the Afghanistan escalation? Congrats, you are now the proud owner of the occupation

[bigtree]

So you support the president's plan to escalate the Afghanistan occupation. Congratulations, you now are a co-owner of the orchestrated conflict you inherited from the last administration. I don't support the escalation, so I'm not assuming the responsibility for the costs in resources, setbacks, lives. Best of luck with it all. I'm expecting for the president and his escalation supporters to now take more responsibility for explaining it all.

I hold you responsible for the anticipated shortfalls in money we will need for the myriad of priorities we demanded in the campaign and were promised. I hold you responsible for the miserly way funding is going to be doled out for basic domestic needs like health care; funding for regulatory agencies governing the environment, our food, our utilities, our infrastructure; funding for veterans; funding for our borders; funding for every non-military function of our government; funding of our debt.

I hold you responsible for the lives that will certainly be lost prosecuting the 9 year-old, 'pollyandish misadventure' in Afghanistan. I hold you responsible for explaining to those of us who opposed this escalation just what we've gained behind the sacrifice of life, limb, and livelihood in Afghanistan. I'm not going to just assume that the increased deployment has made us 'safer', any more than I assumed the Iraq debacle has protected America, our interests, or our allies from the certain reprisals which will escalate right along with our increased military presence and activity.

I'm not going to be pacified by supporters of this escalation pointing to roads built, houses built, schools built, dams built; all commendable, yet ancillary to the military mission the president insists is the primary justification for continuing the occupation and increasing the force. I will demand that supporters show me where the money for humanitarian aid and development actually went. I will demand that supporters explain how that aid and development actually furthered the military mission which is at the heart of the president's justifications for remaining engaged in Afghanistan.

A great deal of the supporters here of this escalation have not bothered to spell out where, exactly, our country is supposed to benefit from this escalation. Talk of our 'responsibility' to clean up the mess we've made there must now be followed with some actual evidence that our forces are helping more than they're tearing down.

It's no longer acceptable to ignore the counterproductive effects of our military presence and activity. So far, the resistant violence and deaths on all sides has risen in proportion to the last increase of force and activity. The increase in the number of American targets makes the jump in casualties inevitable. Supporters need to demonstrate how this latest escalation works to lessen that violent resistance.

During the last administration, all of the intelligence agencies concluded that our military presence alone was fueling and fostering more individuals bent on violent resistance to the U.S. and NATO forces than we could reasonably put down or eliminate. Supporters need to demonstrate that the 'war' they insist on waging is directed against the remnants of al-Qaeda, and not just a self-perpetuating battle against resistance generated solely by our own assault on Afghans and by our military advance across their homeland.

So far, the military has been diligent in highlighting the numbers of combatants they've killed and the weapons they've seized as a measure of progress. But right alongside of those reports is the conclusion that 'terrorist' activity is actually increasing in both Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. One supporter, in defense of the escalation, pointed out to me that before 9-11 there were zero Western and European troops there. It was mentioned as if to say that our military couldn't possibly be the primary catalyst for the escalating violence.

What is often ignored is the fact that the original plane crashers and their accomplices designed their plot to draw Americans to their territory and provoke us into killing Muslims and others there to create a wave of resentment that they could exploit to the advantage of their revolutionary cause. So far, our devastating military presence and activity has been a boon to the perpetrators' efforts to recruit more resisting Afghans and others to fight and die in their orchestrated grudge match. Supporters will need to explain how and where this escalation of force actually decreases that self-perpetuating dynamic of attacks and reprisals.

It's all well and good in a campaign, or while waiting in some self-imposed silence for the president to announce his decision, to be idealistic and optimistic about the prospects for success of this soon-to-be escalated mission without offering specifics. Now, supporters will be challenged to do more to justify the troop increase than just insisting that 'leaving isn't an option', or that 'we knew this would happen because we were told so during the election'.

Supporters of this escalation own the occupation now and I will expect them to account for the consequences with more of an explanation than just 'consider the alternative'. What will these troops actually be fighting and dying for, and what benefit from those sacrifices is there to our country? That's the question that needs to be answered by the president tonight. I intend to hold him, and everyone else who feels confident enough to brag on this Executive action, responsible for the aftermath - the costs in lives, limbs, livelihoods, resources, and prosperity denied here at home.

So enjoy President Obama's autocratic moment of dominance over all of his anti-war supporters. Relish the political debate in Congress over how much money they'll ultimately fork over for this escalation he's shoving down their throats, and how much political cover they can manage in the way of including 'benchmarks' goals or 'off-ramps' in yet another 'emergency' supplemental funding bill.

So sure, I'm bitter about the decision today. I do wish Congress had weighed in with legislation on the funding before the president committed to his decision. I do wish the president had waited for Congress to weigh in.I've been told that there's no need for a new authorization because all of what's going to be proposed falls under the original one. Fair enough, but I still maintain that the nation-building defense of the Karzai regime isn't explicit in the original resolution.

If the 'plan' the president presents for our military tonight is substantively different from the Afghanistan mission of the last administration, it needs to be the subject of debate and resolution in Congress. If it's the same basic 'war on terror' defense that Bush used, the question begs for an answer as to what the hell are we doing escalating Bush's occupation under the same justifications about the 'pursuit' of the perpetrators and accomplices of the 9-11 plane crashes?

Too many people seem to have completely forgotten the cautions we've been shown surrounding the years of Bush's militarism. The notion that this president can 'manage' this occupation better than the last administration is only going to be as valid as the results (or consequences) of these deployments. I'm committed enough and intellectually curious enough to stay engaged in the debate and in efforts to hold the administration and Pentagon accountable for whatever predictions and promises they make. I would expect the same accountability from folks here and elsewhere who are hell-bent to tell us how much of a good thing this escalation is for all of us.

[Mari333]

1. the blood is on your hands if you support this escalation

every child blown into pieces in Afghanistan, every soldier who is shot, every injury , every death,

the blood is now on the hands of anyone who supports this.


Live with the karma.

and shame.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SammyWinstonJack]

96. +1

:thumbsup:

[TwilightGardener]

2. Anyone who voted for Obama, when he said what he was planning to do, is responsible.

And since the other half of the country wanted "100 Years of War" McCain, that's almost all voting Americans who chose to devote more resources to Afghanistan.

[bigtree]

6. I think it was acceptable to know of his intentions and still make a choice

. . . to keep McCain out of office - and to still hold out hope that he'd be smart enough to keep our troops out of there.

[TwilightGardener]

10. If getting out of Afghanistan was a big deal to a voter, then the right choice

would be to withhold the vote or vote for some minor candidate. When someone says clearly what he plans to do, you either support that with your vote or you don't. I think the problem is that many here either got suddenly sick and tired of Afghanistan as an issue once Obama took office, or were previously against it but secretly hoped he was a liar (!). War is a big deal, not exactly a minor side issue that one can ignore. I voted knowing full well that he would devote resources to Afghanistan. I have mixed feelings about it, but I can't wash my hands of my responsibility as a voting citizen.

[bigtree]

17. I think some lessons are being learned about politics

. . . and the ramifications of voting. Despite the sense of betrayal many are expressing over their vote, I still believe the worst choice is to refuse to participate. In that responsibility - in our political process of elections and party - compromise from voters is usually necessary to advance some principles with our votes, and to prevent the advance of others. The next elections will offer the same types of choices - some clear; some not so clear. But the worst thing we can do is leave the ballot to those influences we object to. There is a profound overall difference in parties (and usually the candidates fall right along those lines). It makes a difference who is in power and authority, no matter if there's some issue that doesn't go our way which we consider vital. Politics bends better than it repairs.

[LooseWilly]

44. You argue the point as if the situation hadn't changed since the campaign.

But... it has. The rigged re-election of the Karzai government changes the entire "complexion" of the situation in Afghanistan, as I see it.

US military presence (let alone escalation) now feels less like an attempt to support a nascent government representing a newly empowered and possibly even progressive & educated middle class looking to start a new future in a country that was overrun by US funded fundamentalists (ironically, in order to undermine these same progressive and educated folks back when they were evil commie progressives)... Now the US military presence begins to feel like an effort to pacify insurgents in order to keep in power an ex-Unocal exec whose government is happy to lie, cheat, steal, and produce/distribute heroin in order to line their own pockets... but the important thing is that "pipelineistan" will go ahead as scheduled.

"Elections have consequences"... that includes Afghan elections. To try to deny it in order to "support your president, right or wrong" on the basis of a situational argument that is out of date is intellectually dishonest, and frankly Britney Spears-esque.

In the context of the current situation... it might do wonders for "party unity" if all the Spearsians could at least acknowledge that the "Doves", at this point, have an even stronger argument than they did last year...

[TwilightGardener]

51. I never put much stock in the government there, so the election

isn't really a game changer in my view of the entire war effort. I don't support "promoting democracy", nationbuilding (beyond sending aid), routing out every vestige of the Taliban, etc.--the window for achieving these goals is gone, and was probably unrealistic to begin with. Thus, I don't attach much weight to the corrupt shenanigans of Karzai--leaders come and go, we'll install a new one if we have to, LOL. I support a narrowing of the mission to direct, immediate national security concerns: keeping our forces, diplomats and aid workers as safe as possible, preventing AQ from re-establishing in Afghanistan, gathering intelligence, and being prepared to deal with trouble in Pakistan. I don't know if the troop increase will achieve this, or if it will just make this effort bigger and uglier and deeper.

[LooseWilly]

80. I literally just scratched my head trying to decide how to respond to your post.

My first impression is that you don't support the mission, but you're comfortable with escalating the war effort to accomplish... the mission that you don't seem to really take seriously. ("I don't support "promoting democracy", nationbuilding (beyond sending aid), routing out every vestige of the Taliban, etc.")

I must say, I really do appreciate the ease with which you say: "I don't attach much weight to the corrupt shenanigans of Karzai--leaders come and go, we'll install a new one if we have to, LOL." ... it is at least refreshing.

But, when you say what you do support... I can't for the life of me figure out why you think an escalation is a good, or even reasonable, idea. "I support a narrowing of the mission to direct, immediate national security concerns: keeping our forces, diplomats and aid workers as safe as possible, preventing AQ from re-establishing in Afghanistan, gathering intelligence, and being prepared to deal with trouble in Pakistan."

You admit yourself that you're not sure that a troop increase will accomplish that. Yet you do seem to be fine with the idea of a troop escalation? (I mean, sure... at the end of the day, I guess it doesn't really matter to me either. None of my loved ones are in line to get shipped out... the entire government wets its metaphorical drawers at the idea of raising taxes to pay for the war... and I'm not in a particularly privileged position in the greater scheme of the national establishment, so if the entire US economy collapses under the weight of the debt from this war, as the USSR seems to have done, personally- it's no biggie... But none of that means that an escalation doesn't seem like a bad idea)

"Keeping our forces, diplomats, and aid workers as safe as possible"... uhh, they'd be safer if they left. They'd be safer if there were fewer of them. And, as for aid workers... while there is a war on, the Taliban is obviously going to sabotage any aid programs that might help "win hearts and minds"... so, ending the war is liable, logically, to make the aid programs less of a target, as well as to make any aid workers that might remain less of a target (Taliban can then take credit for aid provided... or whoever the hell might control that bit of real estate).

"preventing AQ from re-establishing in Afghanistan"... I keep hearing that, but it strikes me as an idiotic justification for war... let alone escalation. Everyone pretty much acknowledges that al Qa'eda currently has (at least some) bases of operation in Pakistan. There are many who believe they are also present in Somalia (hanging out with pirates, yarr!). I seem to recall rumors of bases in Qatar from which the USS Cole bombing was planned/organized. There were missile strikes on bases in Sudan after the embassy bombings in Africa... so now, here's my question: What makes potential al Qa'eda bases in Afghanistan more scary than all those other bases around the world?...

I, personally, reject what I can't help calling the "Magic Terrorist Dirt Theory".

"gathering intelligence"... uhh, there's certainly no need for an escalation for this one. No reason I can think of...

"and being prepared to deal with trouble in Pakistan" ... wasn't there talk about some sort of mobile ready force that would be on hand and ready to deploy... ohh, right, that was John Kerry's plan in 2004. Pull out of Iraq, and then have a mobile ready force of some sort, based in Kuwait, or somewhere else (maybe have a floating ultra ready force floating around on a small naval fleet, with a larger secondary force based in Kuwait?)... -- I mean, how can having more forces tied up in missions on the ground in Afghanistan make the US any more prepared to deal with trouble in Pakistan?


Long winded... but everytime I try to come up with a strategic goal that makes escalation make sense... I'm left with nothing.

Well, unless you count: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/05/pipelineistan-goes-af-pak
(google "pipelineistan"... arguments aplenty for escalation)

[TwilightGardener]

95. Not thrilled about an increase in troops, but will wait and see what effect

it will have on the operations there before I officially declare that sending more troops is pointless. As to your separate assertions--modern wars aren't that much different than older wars, in that you need a certain amount of firepower so that your unit is not outgunned/outflanked (don't want the Afghanistan version of Little Big Horn). Therefore, it's conceivable that an increase in troops in some areas might help fend off attacks and improve security. Or, it's just more in harm's way. Time will tell. The reason we focus on AQ in/near Afghanistan is because the Taliban have been just so darn friendly and helpful to them in the past, and also because of the risk of an unstable nuclear Pakistan--if we can catch some of these guys (whoever's left, anyway) and kill them before they destabilize Pakistan, that wouldn't be a bad thing. Pakistan sorta wants this too...although they don't want to look too cooperative with us (helps fuel even more extremism). Totally abandoning the border region and letting them move around and communicate and gather at will seems wrong. And as for intelligence, I don't know how you get that in some of these remote and dangerous areas without at least SOME troops present--and what if a target is discovered? Would help if we had readily available firepower and boots on the ground to assess both the target and the aftermath. The goal is to not kill civilians with mistaken bombs and drone attacks, we've already got a not-so-great record of that. That's my take on it.

[Forkboy]

7. Many voted for Obama is spite of his Afghanistan stance, not because of it.

[cliffordu]

46. That is exactly right.

[Bluebear]

9. So your solution would be to not vote, since both candidate's policies were the same?

[TwilightGardener]

13. If it was an important issue during the campaign, then yes. Don't vote

for someone who plans to do something you don't want him to do. The problem is, Afghanistan was either unimportant or A-OK for most Democrats in 2008. Now, little more than a year later, it's just the biggest awfulest mistake EVAHH!!!

[Bluebear]

14. All candidates are pretty much against gay marriage, so I should never vote again?

[TwilightGardener]

18. If it's a make or break issue, then yeah. If the issue is as crucial as you believe,

then you are rewarding that politician with your vote for violating your key interest. Hillary Clinton wasn't sufficiently sorry for her Iraq position, and enough primary voters on the left refused to reward her for that. That's the way it works. If enough people make their desires vocal as to why they won't support certain candidates, the candidates will learn. Edit to add: I would not have voted for Obama in the general if he supported staying in Iraq like McCain did.

[Bluebear]

21. Well, I am no longer giving dough to the Democratic party. But I will not *not* vote, that's asinine

[TwilightGardener]

26. That is certainly your choice.

[EFerrari]

11. Not really. Voting for Obama was as close to an anti-war choice

as anyone had.

[TwilightGardener]

15. The term "anti-war" never applied to Obama.

The most that anti-war folks can fairly expect from him is that he will end Iraq, try to bring Afghanistan to some sort of beneficial resolution, and not bomb the shit out of Iran in a new war.

[EFerrari]

34. And that's why I said "as close to". nt

[FormerDittoHead]

19. In a nutshell, you stated why so many people won't be voting in 2010 or 2012...

If that's the choice, the only bad decision is to VOTE.

[TwilightGardener]

24. I have no argument with you on that. If we reward politicians for not listening

to us on pet issues, then we get what we vote for, and nothing will change. Can't rid yourself of the responsibility of your vote, when the candidate made himself very clear--no matter how much your mind has changed in the meantime.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Alas. The apologists for the killing will rely on the "We could have won" defense.

When the troops come home in boxes, the economy fails, the Democrats lose office, and when the history of a pointless war is written.

They will cry that it was the fault of "the left", just as they did after that other lost war.

[Mari333]

58. None of their kids will ever come home in boxes

Thats why they are so rah rah rah.

[mike_c]

4. democrats have learned NOTHING from the past....

A house divided against itself is a house that cannot stand.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/multimedia/videos/Presidential-Shocker.html

[eleny]

5. And they ought to try to enlist in the service tomorrow morning

kr

[Gregorian]

8. I echo this sentiment. What this world needs is responsibility.

Imagine how much attention the average citizen would pay if there were responsibility required with decisions. If we could instate some kind of rule whereby people had to pay for the things they supported.

As it stands we live in an illogical society. One where actions are not the result of those who pay for them. And vice versa.

The best way I can think of putting this is that there would be no wars if the people had to directly pay. Period. End of subject.

What we would have is an attentive group of Americans who had actual debate. Should we have better schools or better medicine? But in the end it would not be a debate. It would be the truth. After the votes were counted the results would dictate the spending.

How logical. And how surreal. To think of how backwards we really are.

Why can't we do the obvious? Why can't we do what's best for us? We can. And we should. No more spin. No more lies. A true democracy. From the people to the top.

I imagine lobbyists would be in neighborhoods rather than in Congress. But I still believe it would be a more accurate democratic system. After all, if it's for the people, then why not by the people?

[quiet.american]

12. So, what you're saying is -- you did not vote for Obama?

Because if you did, you are now somewhat belatedly and conveniently absolving yourself of the responsibility you're eager to lay at others' feet.

[berni_mccoy]

16. +1. The outrage here today is that people are having a hard time accepting the fact

they knowingly voted for this.

[Ikonoklast]

22. Cognitive dissonance isn't just the province of the Republicans.

Many here voted for what they thought they heard, or wished for, instead of what the man actually said.

Some people are self-deluding, and then complain about reality not matching the delusion.

I heard exactly what the man said, and voted accordingly.

[bigtree]

29. So, we should have voted for McCain

. . . or just sat out the election if we disagreed with this policy? That's absurd. That presumes that there is no lever for influencing the president while he's in office. Is he an autocrat, or is he accountable to the people who voted for him? Certainly, there are aspects of his new 'plan' that he didn't flesh out in the campaign . . . like the little matter of escalating the force in Afghanistan by *50,000* troops. Where was that spoken in the campaign?

[PVnRT]

69. How many times do you people need to be told

that many of us voted for Obama in spite of his views on Afghanistan? Is that really so hard to understand? Or do you ignore it deliberately?

[Dreamer Tatum]

93. If that helps you sleep at night, more power to you

that distinction is purely academic now.

[bigtree]

23. I voted to put a Democrat in the White House

. . .and to prevent the republican party from having control over the office. The president was my fifth choice. This spam of an argument of yours is absurd and irresponsible. Your argument assumes that our responsibility to vigilance or the president's accountability ends with our votes. Then, you further conflate your argument with a 'with us or against us' appeal. Good luck with that.

[berni_mccoy]

27. My argument is that you accepted his stance on Afghanistan and are only outraged

that he didn't change his stance. If he had changed his stance, you'd be applauding, even though you knew it was breaking a campaign promise.

Your refusal to accept the consequences of your vote is your on absurdity.

[bigtree]

30. He promised to escalate the force by 50,000 troops?

21,000 and 30,000? Where did he promise this?

[Bluebear]

32. You weren't listening!!!!11 It's your on absurdity!!!!!1

:crazy:

[berni_mccoy]

49. He said thousands, but never gave an exact number. He promised to finish the job.

Link if you are interested. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7123044

[bigtree]

55. it was a lot of vagueness

. . . coupled with a strong argument against Bush's militarism.

I saw your link and it's even less comprehensive than other statements I heard during the campaign (and I challenge anyone here who says they listened and read more than me).

Where is al-Qaeda in Afghanistan?

[Bluebear]

31. He promised gays could serve in the military, too. Some campaign promises don't count, eh?

The talking points coming out of the office are particularly ridiculous today.

[quiet.american]

40. Last time I looked, Obama had not done a 180 on that promise.

(As for your office remark, I wish I were able to serve in the Obama administration -- too many skeletons, though.)

[Ignis]

60. Oh, he's just keeping his powder dry for that fight.

Reeeeeeeeeeeeal fucking dry. :eyes:

[bigtree]

61. and allowing folks to be discharged

. . . for a policy he says he disapproves of.

[Ignis]

63. That's not a 180! That's only a 135!

So obviously because Obama isn't doing precisely the polar opposite of his campaign promises, your point is completely invalid.

Or so the story goes, I hear.

[quiet.american]

72. Obama has given his word DADT will be repealed. It will be.

And he will receive no thanks. But it will be repealed.

[Ignis]

73. "No thanks" is bullshit. Give us something to be thankful about.

Or just go back to consulting your bullshit crystal ball and thinking the worst about other DUers--either suits me.

[quiet.american]

74. You're cursing at me, but I'm "thinking the worst." That's rich. nt

[Ignis]

76. Awwww, did the bad man say bad words? Grow up.

Some of us consider equal rights for all to be a larger issue than colorful language.
Your mileage, apparently, varies quite a bit.

But it's good to know where you stand on the important issues. :hi:

[quiet.american]

79. You appear to be having a conversation with yourself.

How you inferred your conclusions from what I said is beyond me. Happy talking, though.

[Ignis]

81. So unpucker yourself, already. I'll swear if I like.

Unless the mods have appointed you DU Hall Monitor, keep your nose out of my diction and on topic.

[quiet.american]

83. There you go again. Weird. nt

[Ignis]

85. OK, run away if you must. I've no time for cowardly behavior. (nt)

[quiet.american]

87. You are cracking me up! Is it intentional? nt

[Ignis]

89. Yes, DADT is funny. Just hi-lar-i-ous! (nt)

[quiet.american]

91. I see you're talking to your invisible friend again. nt

[PVnRT]

70. Wrong

[SammyWinstonJack]

97. If all of us who did not subscribe to Obama stance on Afghanistan had not voted for him in the GE,

would he have won the election?

I think probably he wouldn't have, since so many were against this 'war'.

And he had not won the election, would those who are on board with Obama's plans to escalate, still be on board with McCain's plan to escalate?

[bigtree]

20. So, are you saying it would be better to vote against him?

How absurd and irresponsible.

[Bluebear]

25. Somebody just told me I shouldn't have voted at all.

Since McCain and Obama were 'the same' on this issue.

:crazy:

[bigtree]

41. we had a shot with Mr. Obama and our new Democratic Congress

. . . McCain and his party wasn't even remotely an option.

[quiet.american]

28. You cast your vote for him, full well knowing his position, yet now his policy is on "others" heads.

Hmn.

[Bluebear]

33. So since Obama is against gay marriage, I should not have voted for him, eh?

Hmn.

I have to check off the list and agree with every stance before I can vote for someone? And then be quiet? Nonsense.

[quiet.american]

37. Yet you take responsibility for your vote, don't you.

That's the point.

[bigtree]

35. I don't support it and did what any American should who disagrees with their government

. . . I protested and advocated against it.

Are you suggesting that we're responsible for every stupid thing the president does in office because we voted for him? What happened to our democracy where we're being told to leave our disagreements at the ballot box?

How dishonest to claim Mr. Obama spelled out every aspect of this escalation in the campaign. Now we shouldn't object to what we're just now being told? What a crock. Show me where he said he'd escalate the force there by 50,000 U.S. troops. Show me goddamit.

[quiet.american]

38. Acknowledge your vote and your own responsibility for the implementation of his policy.

To now point a finger at others with a "this is *your* fault" strikes me as mightily convenient.

[bigtree]

39. you can't even back up your own premise

. . . that Mr. Obama supposedly told us he'd escalate the U.S. force in Afghanistan by 21,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops.

What did you do to try and influence his policy?

[quiet.american]

42. Speaking of that, show me where I claimed "Mr. Obama spelled out every aspect of this escalation."nt

[bigtree]

43. 'full well knowing his position'

[quiet.american]

45. Were you unaware of his position on Afghanistan?

Because that's quite different than declaring I claimed he laid out every detail.

[bigtree]

48. It's entirely reasonable to have expected a less escalated response to the occupation

. . . while listening to his views opposing Bush's militarism. As for what he said on Afghanistan, it was mostly a cast off line about the Iraq occupation being a distraction. The point is that there were no specifics along the lines of the 'plan' he's set to reveal. There was no discussion of an increase of the US forces by 50,000+. It's a deflection and a dishonesty to claim voters are responsible for what the president ultimately decided. Not if they've protested those intentions and lobbied their legislators to oppose the escalation. You appear to support it. That's co-ownership, as far as I'm concerned.

[quiet.american]

54. I'm on the opposite side of that coin.

Your view is that it's a "deflection and dishonesty" to take responsibility for my vote and to expect others to do the same.

By all means, disagree with the policy (although we have not yet had the benefit of hearing what the policy actually is -- where are you getting the "50,000+" troop number?), but casting a vote for a candidate, after we have all heard the candidate's position and have a good sense of what that candidate will do on the issue when they gain power (Obama talked about Afghanistan much more than just as an aside), then pointing at others to tell them they "own" that particular policy of the candidate's -- that's what seems dishonest to me.

[bigtree]

56. 21,000 new troops already deployed to defend the 'election' of Karzai

. . . plus the 30,000 reported equals 50,000+

If you support that escalation and argue for it, I think you need to take responsibility for it. That's what ownership means to me in the context of the occupation. I think Americans should assume that same level of 'ownership' of all the policy they support and advocate for (or neglect to).

[quiet.american]

68. There is a blurring of numbers/missions there, though.

We know Obama took office with the promise to immediately send more troops to Afghanistan, which was then known as "the forgotten war" due to Bushco's utter negligence and mismanagement of it.

After that, McChrystal asked for an additional 40,000 troops, which Obama to his credit did not give him a blank check for.

It would probably surprise some here to know I was disappointed to learn that Obama decided not to outright end the conflict, but there was also a ray of hope in the news that he sent his advisors back to the table to come up with recommendations that include an exit strategy. Before I make up my mind that his final decision is utter folly, I want to know from Obama in his own words, what is the mission? What is the strategy? Why has he made the decision he has made? Has he been able to garner support in the form of tangible resources from other countries in the area who have a vital interest in a stable Afghanistan? Where does Pakistan, with its nuclear weapons, fit into the picture?

Currently, there is a zeitgeist on DU that if you are even just willing to listen to what the president has to say on this before making up your mind as to where you stand, you are 100% for full-throttle slaughter of innnocents. Of course that's not true of anyone here, I would venture to say.

Something I have not seen noted were Dan Rather's other remarks on Rachel's show -- that the most recent time he visited Afghanistan, he witnessed something that would not have been possible even a year ago -- top ranking military officers working very closely with Afghan tribal leaders to build relationships. Not shooting at them. Talking with them. I suspect Obama's strategy will include more support on that level.

Bottom line for me is, I simply want to hear what Obama has to say, and I understand that although I was uncomfortable with his stated intentions towards Afghanistan during the campaign, this decision on his part comes as no unpleasant surprise, and my view is that what when I voted him in, that's where my responsibility began.

[bigtree]

75. I will be hanging on his every word

. . . to see if his ideals about diplomacy and development are fleshed out in his policy - and also to see whether his military mission is one which threatens to overshadow or nullify those non-military initiatives, as I believe it does. I really don't have a stit.ch of belief in the efficacy of the military in Afghanistan, for any reason. I just don't believe they are good at nation-building and I don't believe the U.S. is justified in pursuing it at such a presumptuous level of dominance.

I think that waiting to hear him is a bit naive. After all, the WH and military signaled their intentions months ago through orchestrated 'leaks' to gauge the public opinion. Today, reportedly, the president is moving ahead with implementing his decision even before he announces it. Waiting for the announcement is just too late to express opinions on the options being discussed. As difficult as it is to judge without the president's words in front of us, it's a necessary endeavor to pay close attention to what his principals who are advising him say and to measure for ourselves aspects like troop strength and readiness and the state of the political landscape in Afghanistan, for instance, and to make and express judgments about the wisdom or efficacy of the choices before us.

Agreement on 'where our responsibility began' . . .

[quiet.american]

78. Fair enough.

I will add, though, that while I'm waiting to hear what Obama has to say, it is my hope that his strategy will reflect more Marshall Plan, and less Vietnam (don't take me literally, just figuratively speaking).

'Foreign Affairs,' a few months ago, had an excellent issue that had several in-depth perspectives from some of those who are in an advisory capacity on the current situation in Afghanistan. I'm hoping to hear echos of some of their best ideas in his address.

Of course, I know it seems the best idea is to withdraw. And I'm not sure I'm in complete disagreement with that. I, too, will be hanging on his every word.

[Ignis]

64. It's not at all convenient, check that poster's post history.

The claim that this is a last-minute, sudden, or otherwise convenient switch is unfounded.

[quiet.american]

71. You mistake the context in which I use the word. nt

[Ignis]

82. Then the writer did a poor job. Fix it for clarity. (nt)

[quiet.american]

84. Oh, it's you, eh. What a charmer. nt

[Ignis]

86. Nothing but snark and personal attacks? Gotcha. (nt)

[quiet.american]

88. Yep, that about sums you up. nt

[Ignis]

90. ... Says the No-Swears Net Nanny. I'm quakin' in my boots! (nt)

[quiet.american]

92. 'Nuff said. nt

[Ignis]

94. Say it isn't so, Last-Word Lisa! Your kicks will be missed. (nt)

[TicketyBoo]

47. During the campaign

he indicated his support for the war in Afghanistan. If you didn't see that, then you weren't paying close enough attention.

However, the war has changed since that time.

There has been an illegitimate election in Afghanistan. Most of al-Qaeda, our true target, has absconded to Pakistan.

All he has to do is step up to the podium and say, "This is not the same war we were waging a year ago. Our troops are not accomplishing much of anything except getting themselves blown up. Current circumstances in Afghanistan require that we withdraw, at least for the time being."

Never mind what the Republicans say. A huge majority of the American people would be behind withdrawal, especially if he explained it properly.

When LBJ pushed heavily into Vietnam, he was facing an election that very year and worries that the Republicans would paint him as "soft on Communism." This President does not have those time constraints as far as his own election is concerned. He has the time to prove his leadership, and standing down at this point in time is the prudent thing to do. Cheney has already tried to paint Obama as "soft on terrorism." That isn't going to stick, in my opinion.

Getting pushed into another war because of political concerns certainly smacks of Vietnam, come back to haunt us once again. I don't think the American people will turn on this President nearly as hard for bringing our troops home as they will if this turns into another Vietnam, which it certainly has the potential to do.

It takes a bigger man to back us out of there than one who commits more troops. Maybe Obama is not as big a man as we thought or hoped. I hope and pray that he makes the right decision; I fear that he has already made the wrong one.

[bigtree]

50. where did he say he's escalate the force by 21,000 and then by 30,000?

Where did he say that he'd use those troops for a nation-building defense of Karzai? Where is al-Qaeda in Afghanistan?

[TicketyBoo]

53. You didn't read my entire post, did you?

Of course he did not go into specifics during the campaign, but he did say that Iraq was the "wrong war" and Afghanistan was the "right war."

But please read the rest of my post. I'm not supporting this in any way.

[bigtree]

57. I noticed that and left my comments anyway

I should have acknowledged your opposition and I apologize. Head swimming . . .

Not much from candidate Obama which provides a coherent roadmap of his intentions in Afghanistan. There's not even a separate section on it on his campaign site. You'll come up practically empty there just looking for the name of the country.

[EFerrari]

59. AQ hasn't been in Afghanistan for years now. That is not new. n/t

[TicketyBoo]

99. There are still a few there,

but the number has declined in the past year.

[Soylent Brice]

52. K&R if there were a real war on terror, it would be against

all the politicians that have terrorized the american public into believing their piles of bullshit and lies. for selling the american public on the premise that war is good for them.

those who beat the drums of war are the true terrorists.

[Mari333]

62. +10000000000000000000000000

[Ignis]

66. Please pick from the following choices:

1. MIC
2. MIC light

Don'tcha love democracy? :patriot:

[SammyWinstonJack]

98. +1000 nt

[timtom]

65. Not me, buddy!

My wish list is quite clear and non-negotiable (since the invasion of Afghanistan):

1. Get the f**k out of Afghanistan.
2. Get the f**k out of Iraq.
3. Get the f**k out of Pakistan.
4. Rebuild America's infrastructure -- now!

[SIMPLYB1980]

67. Not going to read all that, but I'm

glad that it is troubling you so.

[superduperfarleft]

77. We ALL own this war, just like we own every foreign policy blunder the US has made

that we completely forget about but impacts generation after generation of people on the other side of the world.

And we will all suffer the consequences when the kid of the goat-herder we killed grows up to fly a plane into a building full of people like us (as opposed to members of the ruling class that makes these decisions).