Imagine for a Minute.....

[FrenchieCat]

The Current President who campaigned on getting in office and ending one war, and concentrating on another.....

after conducting a very thoughtful review,

declares, in an address to the Nation on Tuesday,
that he has decided that the Afghanistan War is no longer a war of necessity,
as he had once said, but rather is a war that needs to end like right away,
because of the cost of treasure and because history shows that a war with Afghanistan is un winnable.

Imagine that instead of ordering 30K+ troops to Afghanistan, Pres. Obama orders a draw-down starting like right away.

I can imagine that many here at DU would be wiping tears of joy from their eyes, and shaking in wonderment!

Now, imagine that the draw-down takes place, and the Afghanistan War is more or less ended.

Americans go back to living their lives. Those who don't find Obama progressive enough find other things to diss him for. Our lives continue, politics continue, with both sides having plenty to say about Obama's Peace move.

Then seven months later, an attack occurs...say, on the New York Subway with a small home made bomb. The attack destroys a subway car, and kills 39 people. The news report on this vividly for days. In fact, there is no other news. There is a video tape of the explosion and the carnage that ensued by a survivor who stood far enough away, but close enough. The tape is played over and over again on all of the Cable Televisions.

A trail of evidence (a car parked down the street) leads law enforcement to capture 2 "suspects". These two turn out to be Fundamentalist Muslims with tenuous ties to AlQeada. The Evidence is sketchy, as they deny any involvements, and claimed to have been framed. The bomb parts are traced back to Afghanistan, and the speculations run rapid.

Shell shocked New Yorkers and Americans hang on to every word that the news reports on this National Tragedy. Short Vignettes of the victims, which included 4 children are shown on CNN's "Heroes" show. Plenty of Republicans are found to discuss how Democrats are not good Commanders in Chiefs, and how Obama allowed New York to be attacked, especially leaving us vunerable as we hadn't gotten Bin Laden and had left things in Afghanistan to deteriorate.

The President states a few words in his public prayer for the victims.
He attends the funerals,
and has the surviving families over to the White House....

And then the questions begin (although they might have started sooner)....

The New media start to opine and demand, how could this have happened?
Dick Cheney shows up on the television and blames Barack Obama for being the President to order home our Troops with their tails between their legs. Dick Cheney's daughter, who has no shame, says what is on many's mind; this happened under Pres. Obama's watch; him and his white flag of surrender.

The media starts to wonder why President Obama, instead of doing what he had said he would do about the war, decided to leave Afghanistan instead? They play some of the many tapes of him stating that Afghanistan had been a war neglected for 7 years, and shows him pledging that he would make certain, as President to get Afghanistan right. The Youtube videos played on MSNBC and CNN and Fox in the form of Loop-D-Loop which shows Obama talking about how Afghanistan had never been given the proper attention or proper resources that it needed, because our focus had turned to Iraq shortly thereafter. The Republicans make ads from these tapes in preparation for the 2010 Election. They show Obama talking about what he would do in Iraq, and then announcing the draw-downs on that Tuesday after Thanksgiving. They super-impose his face with that of Osama Bin Laden. They say that they tried to warn us.

The voices of dissension against the President in the Press grow louder and louder with each passing day.

Perhaps if Obama would have had least try to see if there was some constructive way to contain Al Qeada prior to leaving, they offer, then maybe he could have had a defense. But, they say, this President didn't even try. As soon as he could, he pulled our troops out, and allowed Al Qaeda to plot against the United States once more. In fact, they will say, his actions emboldened the enemy, who realize that America leadership says one thing, but with enough pressure applied, will turn on a dime and do something else out of fear of being another LBJ.

The Neocons start their campaign. Every other article in the Wall Street Journal is about the "what ifs" this President would have had the foresight to understand that Al Qaeda wasn't harmless, and still hated the United States and the American Way. Did the President take his oath of office lightly, and didn't understand what the "will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend" was really about. Didn't he know that his priority job was to protect the American people? What was he thinking when he went against the Generals? Did he hold too much sympathy for the enemy? Was this something he helped plan? How could he have not believed that another attack could happen on our soil, if he halted what we had started without even a strategy to deal with those Al Qeada terrorists that we knew darn well were very real, and wished Americans harm.


Imagine that....
and then imagine your future.

[mattvermont]

1. a "Modest Proposal" ?? nt

[LooseWilly]

47. Mmmmm....

... tastes like deep fried freedom...

[FrenchieCat]

48. I'm French......

and I remember that well.

[LooseWilly]

53. Heh... remember what well?

Are you assuming I'm making a reference to "freedom fries"?

I'm actually taking the Jonathan Swift allusion and "American-ifying" it by insisting on "deep frying" and associating the deep frying with "freedom".

You are, I presume, familiar with Swift's "A Modest Proposal"?...

[FrenchieCat]

54. I did a play on words.......on your comment, while ignoring the associating of my OP

to A Modest Proposal.

so shoot me.

[LooseWilly]

55. Fair enough... re-contextualization I can live with.

It was a suggestion I didn't entirely not-mean to imply... but the implication was meant to be tangential, and non-sensical without also acknowledging the Swift allusion.

Thus, I chose to drag your response back to the Swift... perhaps because of the added irony of long pork not being Islamo-kosher.

[olegramps]

176. Here is a modest proposal:

We take a cue from Roe's Machiavellian play book and we plant bomb making material in the Republican Headquarters, copy a fingerprints and other forensic evidence and transplant them at the scene where we plan to explode a bomb.

Of course we learn of this plot by the Republicans who are attempting to discredit Obama and evacuate the scene before the explosion. Of course you want the bomb to go off to provide the MSM with an opportunity for lots of photos. After the evacuation is completed with us saving all those innocent lives that right wing extremists are willing to sacrifice, the bomb is remotely activated. McCain's daughter along with a host of top Republicans is implicated and arrested for attempted murder. O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck who are discovered to have prepared statements prior to the plot that have been discovered on their computers clearly implicating them and bring about the death of the right wing propaganda network of liars. The investigation also exposes a number of clergy, including some Catholic bishops who are willing to use the plot to advance their anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage agenda. Of course they would claim that they didn't know that the plot who actually result in some innocent people being murdered. This would be a fitting Project for the New American Century that would herald the death of the Republican Party.

[bigjohn16]

2. Imagine

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

[FrenchieCat]

3. Unfortunately, what I am asking to be imagined,

is more apt to come true than the words to that classic song.

[bigjohn16]

6. So now people on DU are using terror attacks and fear to further their agenda.

This has got to be a bad dream.

[FrenchieCat]

9. You can call it what you want. I call it a plausible scenario.

You can think that it could never happen,
but that would make you foolish, not me.

[bigjohn16]

16. Seems like the same tactic.

COLUMBIA, Mo., Sept. 7 -- Vice President Cheney warned on Tuesday that if John F. Kerry is elected, "the danger is that we'll get hit again" by terrorists, as the Bush campaign escalated a furious assault on the Democratic presidential nominee that has kept Kerry from gaining control of the election debate.

Cheney: Kerry Victory Is Risky

[FrenchieCat]

22. Considering what Obama has stated about what he would do

in Afghanistan if he were President, it would be worse.

The President will not continue this war forever, and he will have an end game....
but considering that he believes that this war was neglected and none of the
possible avenues never pursued, he will finally attempt to see if there is a
chance that he can get the Afghan folks to deal with Al Qaeda in a way that
makes some sense. Afghanistan is without a real economy, and that in itself,
is one of the reason that Al Qaeda was able to find footing and support there.

This President can't afford not to try.

Doesn't mean it is open ended,
just means he ain't crazy.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

75. You could replace Obama's name with Bush's

and you wouldn't be any different than the blind Bush supporters who were championing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan only a couple of years ago. You realize this is what you sound like right?

[timeforpeace]

149. Irony is totally lost on some. As well as honesty.

[grasswire]

11. didn't Condi Rice say that same thing?

I have rarely been as sickened on DU as I am by this OP.

[FrenchieCat]

15. The truth can make some throw up.....

especially those who live in their own reality,
and who would refuse to acknowledge that what I have described
is not a far flung vision.

Should I just shut up and sit the fuck down?

Why would that be?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

76. It really is sickening

you should think hard about what you are saying. Where is the mushroom cloud, Condi?

[CTyankee]

96. I would be very surprised if this happened and it doesn't have anything to do with you, Frenchie.

I have read Christopher Dickey's recent book, "Securing the City," which outlines all the wonderful and extraordinary tactics the NYPD has taken to protect NYC from a terrorist attack. I am not dissing your example. I am just saying that the NYPD has an antiterrorist operation going that even rivals the FBI and CIA and certainly any other American city. They had people on planes to Mumbai, to Madrid, to London when they were hit to gather information. They have studied the M.O. of the terrorists and have planned accordingly.

New York City is the best equipped place in the world to defend against terrorists. I won't go into all the reasons why this is so, but read the book. You will be surprised and impressed by what they are doing. It is a wonder.

[MollieBradford]

127. because it would be less of an embarrasment?

Should I just shut up and sit the fuck down?

Why would that be?

[TankLV]

138. NO - not "truth" but SPECULATION on "what ifs"...

and you sound just like bush*, cheney, and all the other repukes who've USED THE FEAR CARD to prevent us from doing what is RIGHT!

And, as usual in this case, you are WRONG!

YOU and the repuke WAR MONGERS were WRONG about it THEN, and are WRONG about it NOW!

[goclark]

174. Thank you Frenchie for asking us to think

It it beyond my imagination to understand that anyone could believe that President Obama has a thinking pattern anywhere near GW and his crew.

Well, let me re phase that -- GW doesn't have a brain so thy only used him as a puppet.

First off,we should know by now that the Rethugs were not concerned about anything but making money off of the War and gaining power over the entire planet.

Anyone that has watched this President should know that his life long buddies have absolutely NO POWER over the MSM, Banks, Blackwater, the Carlyle (sp.?) Group etc.

The Republicans still hold the massive POWER in this country.

I am surprised that he has managed to make even a few decisions to effect our lives.

But let's not forget who pulls the strings in this country, it not the Democrats!

[Clio the Leo]

4. I dont need to imagine my future....

.... because the past is crystal clear in my memory.

The first plane that hit the first tower killed a friend of mine.


How soon we forget.




Thank you Frenchie.

[FrenchieCat]

7. The worse part is that Dick Cheney could plan the whole thing.....

and it would only become a "conspiracy theory".

Any agenda of progressives would be DOA for a long ass time.
The Republicans would make sure of it.

We would be enraged and united in trying to argue that
when this happened to Bush, his approval rating went up....
and we would complain of how Democrats are treated so differently
from Republicans in these instances.

Meanwhile, the Republicans would sweep into office in congress,
and a move would be made for us to go back to Afghanistan,
and the fear would be great enough to turn sentiments around,
and support the bombing of Iran......perhaps.

[Clio the Leo]

10. I dont know why that's not plainly obvious to everyone.

Pity our enemies aren't as peace-loving as we are.

Again, how soon we forget.

[ShortnFiery]

12. It's NOT Cheney who will be sending more of our youth into that HELL-HOLE!

No, it's all President Obama: He owns this madness now - no excuses.

[Clio the Leo]

18. Was it madness to want to send them on 9/12/01?

Has the rationale changed? And if so, why?

[bigjohn16]

20. You should start a "9/12 Project" to help people remember. nt

[Clio the Leo]

23. I'm asking a serious question.

And I'd respectfully ask you to not compare me to the man who MOCKED my late-friends loved ones.

[bigjohn16]

28. I respectfully decline. The argument is the same. nt

[Clio the Leo]

37. Nope, I'm not making a dime off of my question.

If someone wanted to put pressure on the administration to pull the troops out ASAP, they'd need more people on their side. I can always give a fellow Democrat the benefit of the doubt that their opinion might be more accurate than mine. ...... So if I'm wrong, if the tactical situation has changed ..... or if you have data to back up the notion that we're throwing money down the toilet, I'm all ears.

And how do we decide what battles are worth fighting and what bases are worth manning?

Do we pull out of South Korea? ....... Ramstein? ...... Do we simply bring EVERYONE home and have them man the air and sea in a defensive position? Where do we draw the line?

[LooseWilly]

51. Ok, I'll bite... First, ask what was the reason we went in?

Originally, the US asked Afghanistan to turn over bin Laden for involvement in the crime of 9/11.
The Afghan government asked for proof of bin Laden's involvement (understandably, as he was undoubtedly seen as something of a local hero for the part he played in the Mujaheddin's fight to drive out the Soviets).
Bush, being Bush, declined to provide proof.
The Afghan government proceeded to then decline to turn over bin Laden.
Suddenly the law enforcement issue becomes "war". Special forces coordinate with local insurrectionists (the Northern Alliance), and are later re-inforced with regular military in order to invade... why?... as far as the rhetoric went: to apprehend bin Laden for his criminal role in a mass murder on US soil.

The war is successful, the apprehension is not. Begin occupation. Then, abandon the pursuit of bin Laden in order to invade Iraq.

What was the point? Why did we supposedly invade Afghanistan? To apprehend bin Laden. After 9 years of occupation, it seems relatively clear that bin Laden is no longer in Afghanistan.

Mission: Failure.

The mission was never to establish some sort of New Republic. The mission wasn't even to oust the Taliban... it was to apprehend bin Laden. This fixation on fighting the Taliban... and the absurd notion that it will somehow make the US safe from further attacks by al Qa'eda (as if they can't plan further attacks from Pakistan, or Waziristan, or even Somalia)... is a recipe for endless war.

The Taliban are oppressive religious fundamentalists... and as such I have little sympathy for them. On the other hand, the Southern Baptists often seem like oppressive religious fundamentalists... yet the US military seems willing to endure their existence.

If you are seriously asking "if the tactical situation has changed"... I'd have to say yes it has. And the strategic situation as well. At this point, Afghanistan seems like it is, for the US, a "war" to keep one of the major ethnic populations of Afghanistan out of power, based upon a questionable rationale... and an ethnic population that has shown itself to be very adept at entrenching itself and fighting any war no matter how protracted.

So... the question is... what the hell is the point of continuing this "war"/occupation? I think you have to ask yourself: Is the US willing to fight a war to maintain the position of an educated, moderate middle class in Afghanistan... indefinitely? These ludicrous "ticking bomb" al Qa'eda scenarios, on the other hand, are the stuff of paranoia.

Of course, the irony is that, as we pay to fight a war for the Afghan middle class, the middle class in the US finds itself starved of resources. Not that that really matters to me personally, as I don't feel like I actually qualify for middle class-dom myself... but it seems like an issue worth considering.

[Clio the Leo]

72. Thank you......

Now, I'm not clear if you are saying that "The mission wasn't even to oust the Taliban" means that was what the Bush admin was telling the public, or the REAL goal was never that, or both.

What I understood at the time was that the Taliban supported al Qaeda and with the Taliban in control of the Afghani government, al qaeda had greater resources with which to launch more attacks. I never believed the mission was to get one guy and then get out. The goal, as *I* understood based on what the press was reporting, was to remove the Taliban from power.

CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL
America Strikes Back: Pakistan Supporting U.S.-Led Air strikes in Afghanistan
Aired October 23, 2001 - 05:15 ET

(snips from that transcript)

The latest from inside Afghanistan, those ongoing military campaigns, we are told that jets flew over the eastern city of Jalalabad today. They didn't bomb the city. But further south in Kandahar, jets did fly over early in the morning and bombs were dropped on the city, we are told.

They hit what we are told was some fuel trucks, some oil tankers. Now, our staff there in Kandahar say that fuel prices are beginning to go up inside Afghanistan now. They've gone up some 30 percent. And they say they are told by Taliban officials there that the Taliban now believe that the United States and the Allied air campaign is beginning to target their fuel resources inside the country. The Taliban believe that the Allied forces are trying to degrade their ability to move around the country.

***

Now, the concerns here among the Pakistani population, this just isn't in the radical elements only. This is in the general population. The pictures they are seeing from Afghanistan are pictures of innocent civilians being hurt. The articles being written in the newspapers here are indicating that the targeting is not just after the al Qaeda organization, but after the Taliban regime, and that is giving some of the residents of Pakistan real cause for concern, as General Musharraf says -- Daryn.

***

Well, you speak of the concerns in Pakistan, concern number one at the Pentagon is to pound the Taliban as much as possible.

***

The Pentagon talking about this increased attention on the Taliban front lines with bombing taking place on the front line positions. The Pentagon hoping that that will actually help the Northern Alliance and other opposition forces to gain ground in Afghanistan. The Pentagon releasing on Monday new gun camera video to help illustrate what they are talking about. They say that the video shows direct hits on Taliban tanks and armored vehicles. So far, however, the attacks have not resulted in significant advances. Officials say the Northern Alliance is so far outnumbered near the northern city of Mazir-i-Sharif, for example. But officials say that they are expecting progress in the days ahead.

***

HARRIS: Understood. Understood. One final question this morning. And we're also, we're trying to read the tea leaves here because we can't get folks to leak to us the way some people think, according to the newspapers here. But what are you hearing there about this change in tactics now? Going after the Taliban, they've been doing that specifically and strategically now for the last couple of days, and that does represent something of a change. What are you hearing about that?

BUCKLEY: Well, it represents a change to the extent that they are no longer going after fixed targets, or they are changing some of their focus. They're still going after some fixed targets, but they are increasing their targeting of some of these Taliban troop positions.

***

How much more the air strikes chip away at Taliban defenses will show how much Washington wants the Northern Alliance to advance toward the capital and step up pressure on the Taliban in order to replace the regime before winter.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0110/23/se.05.html

Now .... if I had to briefly summarize what I have always understood President Obama's position on the matter to be, it's that if the Taliban regains control of the Afghan govt., then al qaeda will once again have the resources it had before 9/11 to launch attacks against .... whomever ...... our goal is 1. to debilitate the Taliban to the point where that cannot happen, and 2. make sure that the new Afghani gvt. is able to defend itself against a resurgence, as we have done in Iraq (regardless of why we got into Iraq, let's not get lost on a tangent lol) 3. and then get out. His point is that #1 has only been partly done and #2 hasn't been done at all.

Now ... what am I missing?

[LooseWilly]

93. Ask yourself: What resources does Taliban controlled Afghanistan offer al Qae'da?

I can't imagine that there's any sort of industrial production infrastructure of any great use... as al Qae'da can most likely buy any arms and munitions it wants from international arms dealers... and probably have the stuff delivered.

Land for training grounds and such? True, those would be of use... but the tribal areas of Pakistan would also serve those purposes... not to mention Somalia (I'm sure the Somali Pirates would be willing to even take them out for pleasure cruises...). Is this a resource of spectacular use? Not as far as I know.

As far as I can see, the only "resource" that Taliban controlled Afghanistan offered to al Qae'da was not having to worry about close scrutiny of whatever identities they were traveling under. That is hardly a resource worth fighting a war costing trillions of dollars, in my opinion.

Can you recall ever hearing any of those supposed "resources" being specifically cited?

Meanwhile... I notice, from your quotes of cnn...

...
The articles being written in the newspapers here are indicating that the targeting is not just after the al Qaeda organization, but after the Taliban regime, and that is giving some of the residents of Pakistan real cause for concern, as General Musharraf says ...

This clip indicates to me that the Pakistanis are expressing surprise that the US (hrhmm.. "the Coalition") is targeting the Taliban regime. Why would they be surprised, if the initial justifications for the invasion were, in fact, to overthrow the Taliban regime? Correct, there would, in that case, be no reason to be surprised... if, however, the goal were solely to arrest and rendition bin Laden, and others in key leadership roles in al Qa'eda; and if hostilities toward the Taliban regime were solely initiated/justified as a reaction to the Taliban regime's refusal to extradite bin Laden and other al Qa'eda leaders- then the expectation would be that only those elements of the Taliban regime which actively interfered in US (ahem, "Coalition") detainment procedures (aimed at the securing of al Qa'eda leaders) would be targeted for any sort of hostilities.

If that were the expectation (which I believe it was, since the invasion was, as I recall, a response to Afghan refusal to extradite bin Laden or others without evidence)- then Pakistanis would have every reason to be surprised and concerned when evidence began to surface that the US (erhhm, the "Coalition") was actively targeting the regime itself, as a whole.

I also noticed this:

...
The Pentagon hoping that that will actually help the Northern Alliance and other opposition forces to gain ground in Afghanistan. ...

Now, if toppling the Taliban regime, in its entirety, had been an explicit part of the justification for the invasion, why would the Pentagon be trying to justify bombing Taliban positions? If, on the other hand, they were supposedly only concerned with the pursuit of al Qa'eda leaders, then bombing of Taliban targets would need to be "justified" within that context: i.e. the bombings hold those Taliban forces out of the way of the advances in pursuit of al Qa'eda positions & suspected positions.

And, of course, as your cnn clip continues through the evolving coverage and developments, we get to the following:

...
But what are you hearing there about this change in tactics now? Going after the Taliban, they've been doing that specifically and strategically now for the last couple of days, and that does represent something of a change. ...

(Italics mine.)
And there you have it... the cnn talking heads explicitly acknowledging that "Going after the Taliban... specifically and strategically... represent(s) something of a change". Obviously, if the Taliban regime's "resources" were reasonably considered some part of the threat of al Qa'eda, in any sort of "justifications scenario", then that would've been put forward from the start. If the cnn talking heads didn't get that detail on their list of talking points, then obviously that is because there was no way to reasonably include it in amongst the "justifications" for the invasion. Not even in the world of "Bushie Justifications". Instead, in the midst of the chaos of the invasion, that goal just popped up... and then made it into the second (or third, or fourth) round of "Justification Re-Hashing".

Some mention the "resources". Most satisfy themselves by justifying the continuing war as a means to "deprive al Qa'eda of a 'safe haven' from which to conduct planning and training for further acts of terrorism against the US and her allies".

It is a reasonable sounding argument... especially since al Qa'eda was indeed using Afghanistan as a 'safe haven'... etc. in 2000. However, you have to ask yourself... is al Qa'eda only capable of planning from Afghanistan? Can't they do it just as well from Pakistan? From Somalia? From Qatar? From any of the UAE states? Maybe Myanmar? Columbia (Sendero Luminoso might be willing to harbor them... especially if they could add heroin trade to the cocaine trade...)

Is "denying a safe haven" really a reasonable justification for doggedly fighting the Taliban? Would some sort of negotiation, and offer of aid if women were treated better and al Qa'eda was deemed illegal... with a clause to allow some US Special Forces, or UN forces, or someone to act on the ground to enforce said provisions... not be a more reasonable, and affordable, solution?

Or is the collective government afraid of "showing weakness" and admitting that there is a limit to US Military Prowess... and willing to hemorrhage away trillions of dollars and thousands of lives and tens of thousands of casualties... just to maintain the "US Brand" of "Infinite Military Power"?

At least, that's what I see when I look at this policy decision.

[Enthusiast]

122. Oh, this is a good post! nt

[Enthusiast]

121. So, you believe we are

justified in outspending the entire rest of the world on our military? Why don't other countries need to do this for their "defense"?

[TankLV]

140. I want to start a 9/10 Project - to remind our country what it was like BEFORE the COUP!!!

I am proud to say I have a PRE-911 mentality!!!

[MollieBradford]

130. yes it was madness

because the people who caused 911 were not there.

[MollieBradford]

131. so

you are proposing that to save president back bench from taking a political hit we should spend billions of dollars and more American lives on a war we have no business waging?

[FrenchieCat]

19. President Obama wouldn't be President for long........

and after that, it wouldn't matter.

[treestar]

67. Disagree

Bush/Cheney spent 7 years there, creating a new situation. Obama is not returned to Oct. 2001. He has to deal with it as it is after 7 years there. That's not the same thing.

[asdjrocky]

155. I lost a family member that day. Top floor, Cantor Fitzgerald.

I'm as insulted as she would be at having her memory used to prop up this tasteless propaganda.

[PurityOfEssence]

5. So, wage a middle-of-the-road war so nobody can slag you if something goes wrong?

Here's something Bill Clinton never got either: THE REACTIONARIES HATE YOU AND THEY'LL DO ANYTHING TO DESTROY YOU REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU DO TO APPEASE THEM.

What you propose is plausible deniability, a classic bit of Vietnam-era doublespeak. Time for a little pre-emptive retaliation, too, since we're on the subject. How's that rural pacification going, by the way? What a mess.

To engage in an unwinnable counterinsurgency occupation just so people will think you're manly is bad enough, but to do so just as a hedge against dissent is positively demoralizing. Tuesday should be interesting.

[grasswire]

24. well said

Honestly, some moments lately I feel the world is turned upside down. Democrats act like Republicans, war is peace, up is down.

[FrenchieCat]

30. It is for you to decide that is what is happening.....

however, I will tell you that there are many progressives out there that are realist,
and don't think exactly like you.....
and those realists are not naive enough NOT to play out various scenario
is several directions to see where we'd end up,
to determine whether to support a position or not.

That is the right of all members of DU,
not to fall for the groupthink that "some" progressives have.

If you want no more wars, no matter what, good for you.

I want no more wars, but I'm not willing to sacrifice everything for it.
That's just me.

[PurityOfEssence]

49. Apologists often claim they're realists

If one has to fight pointless wars of domination to hold onto power, it makes one wonder what's off limits. The only thing that really matters is the sum of one's actions, and when the path to this hope-filled Nebuloustan becomes littered with enough corpses, it comes time to see something delivered. So the guy's got a (D) after his name; if he sucks up to power and acquiesces to vengeance-driven imperialists, who cares?

We complained endlessly how reactionaries would love George W. Bush no matter what; how much better is the widespread habit of our President's most ardent followers to rationalize this kind of death-dealing? It wouldn't be any more sensible or ethical even if it could work.

Chess. It rhymes with mess.

[Enthusiast]

123. I contend there is

no way to stop a determined terrorist enemy, anyway. The U.S. population and land area is just too great. The land and sea borders are too long. The ability for an enemy to "blend in" is too great.

Good intelligence would go much further in stopping an attack than any number of troops in Afghanistan. Besides, an attack could come from any country.

[LooseWilly]

8. It's so obvious, even a child can see what you're driving at!

The New media start to opine and demand, how could this have happened?
Dick Cheney shows up on the television and blames Barack Obama for being the President to order home our Troops with their tails between their legs. Dick Cheney's daughter, who has no shame, says what is on many's mind; this happened under Pres. Obama's watch; him and his white flag of surrender.

Obviously, Obama needs to arrange to have Dick and Liz Cheney assassinated before he withdraws troops from Afghanistan, that way they won't be able to "spearhead" the criticism after said withdrawal, inevitably, leads to another al Qa'eda attack on NY (one which obviously couldn't have been planned in Somalia...).

Problem Solved...

[FrenchieCat]

13. Problem not solved.

The point is that Obama will not announce a draw down,
and there are many reasons for it.

I believe that this President take his oath very seriously.

Perhaps the story I told is an impossibility only because he will not choose
the fantasy that many have decided is a doable reality....

if he were to somehow listen
to his wiser counsel here at DU.....
The story is not only possible,
but could be probable.

[grasswire]

25. "his wiser counsel here at DU"??

What ARE you smoking tonight?

[LooseWilly]

40. Given your scenario, assassinating Dick and Liz Cheney would indeed solve the problem.

Your scenario (OP)

(blah blah blah)...

And then the questions begin (although they might have started sooner)....

The New media start to opine and demand, how could this have happened?
Dick Cheney shows up on the television and blames Barack Obama for being the President to order home our Troops with their tails between their legs. Dick Cheney's daughter, who has no shame, says what is on many's mind; this happened under Pres. Obama's watch; him and his white flag of surrender.

The media starts to wonder why President Obama, instead of doing what he had said he would do about the war, decided to leave Afghanistan instead? ...

(blah blah blah)

Your scenario shows a clear progression from Dick and Liz Cheney's bringing up "his white flag of surrender" ... to "The media starts to wonder why..."

Stomp the snowball before it can begin ... snowballing. Snuff Dick and Liz Cheney. Bush has already, if I'm not mistaken, rescinded the Executive Order banning the US use of assassination. Voila, Bob's Your Uncle... kill the fuckers and problem solved.

It's a simple and elegant solution to a simplistic scenario's difficulties.

... Or, maybe the solution feels too simplistic because your whole scenario is too simplistic... you know, like Jack Bauer torturing Evil Towel-Heads, in order to get a confession that will allow him to stop a ticking nuc. (Do nuc's tick in your scenario?)


Maybe... and I apologize if I'm stepping on your fictional scenario toes here... but maybe Obama chooses to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, and uses US intelligence services to monitor what happens? Maybe he arranges to leave some US 'moles' behind... and, once the collective intelligence suggests that the Taliban has taken over again, and is re-asserting its control of the country... and it invites al Qa'eda back... and they come back... (Or maybe I should say IF this set of circumstances ever comes to pass once the US has withdrawn)... then A New Invasion begins... so that Obama can DO IT RIGHT (call it a "Do Over"), and actually catch the al Qa'eda leadership.

Maybe, this saves the US Gov't tens of trillions of dollars, gives soldiers a chance to have some down time, the military a chance to re-build itself... and yet Obama can still claim credit as a Good and Proper Warmonger, Worthy of American Adoration?


... Maybe my scenario is ludicrous... but it doesn't seem any more ludicrous to me than yours. Though, at least your scenario provides a justification for offing Dick and Liz Cheney, in the name of National Security.

[JVS]

118. +1

[Techn0Girl]

14. Good Lord :( This is right out of the Right Wing Chickenhawk Playbook....

Words fail me .

[FrenchieCat]

17. You may be right....but,

It isn't like it hasn't ever happened before.
And yes, the Right would love to have something like this to work with;
yes, it would be straight out of a RW playbook....
and they'd have plenty to play with.

Just like they worked Black Hawk Down.
Just like when the superimposed the photo of then Sen. Cleland,
a Vietnam hero with photos of Bin Laden.

Do you underestimate the Right, and the Lenght they are willing to go to?

[Techn0Girl]

29. Do you understand?

"Do you underestimate the Right, and the Lenght they are willing to go to?"

I'll tell you what I understand.

I understand that it is not acceptable to sacrifice a single American life, not one, to assure another four years for Democrats (or anyone else). This is what you are proposing.

I understand that chickenhawks who propose crap like this never - NEVER - would be willing to sacrifice themselves or their children for "the cause". Better other young people die.

I understand that I served seven years in the military and you did not.
I understand what war is about and I understand what happens to people who go there.
I understand that you don't know what you are talking about.

I also understand that a majority of the American people want out of this war.

[rockymountaindem]

34. I made my reply to the OP before I read your other posts in this thread

So I'll repeat myself and add a bit more. What you're saying is that we, as Democrats, need to show how tough we are by deploying more forces to Afghanistan because if something bad happens in the future here in the US, the RW noise machine will work us over really badly and there won't be anything we can do about it. You suggest that we are underestimating the likes of Karl Rove while you are basically living in fear of him and his methods and what they might be able to accomplish in a hypothetical situation.

Two questions: Don't you think the real problem lies with the inability of Democrats, including Obama, to go on the offensive against such scurrilous charges? Is it not THEY who underestimate the challenge posed by Rove and co.? Secondly - what happens if Obama deploys more soldiers to Afghanistan only to have the situation fall apart anyway under his watch or turn into an even bigger quagmire a la Iraq? Don't you think our counterparts on the other side of the aisle will be able to make make just as much hay out of that eventuality? I can picture it now: "Lyndon Baines Obama" ads all over our TVs. There's no way to win against people like Rove without calling them out for what they are, which sadly nobody seems willing to do on our side.

[Enthusiast]

124. The "Right" does a lot of wrong things.

Like conveniently forgetting the attack in Lebanon killing 250 American Marines during Reagan's presidency. And his lack of a response to this attack. And the way they conveniently forget Iran-Contra.

This clearly illustrates that they will frame the argument in their favor no matter what the circumstances. This is why a fair M$M is so essential to a democracy.

[Prism]

21. This OP is totally without any human soul

We will be attacked again. Someday, somewhere, someone is going to wreak terrible damage. It will happen. Maybe not during Obama's term(s). Maybe it will be under the next President's watch. Or the next. In a nation of 300 million people where travel in and out of this country is still relatively free, someone will get in if they are not homegrown.

Arguing that the President should base the decision to wage a war with very real consequences, real deaths, and a giant chunk of the U.S Treasury that should be dedicated to the suffering American people because you're afraid of the PR fall-out is one of the emptiest things I have ever read on this message board.

Ever.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. This is totally beyond all parody.

[FrenchieCat]

26. You can call me empty if you want........

or whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

I'm not crazy.
I'm not even that wise.
I just know America well.
I've been studying if for a while.
I know what we are capabable of,
not by just guessing, but by seeing it all before.

The point is that this President told us what he would do....
and so it is those who attempt to pretend that somehow he should do the reverse
that have me wondering why they would believe that they are even rational.

It's great to want what one wants,
but its important to take that "want" all the way to its end....
not just where you would choose it to end.

[Prism]

33. I think a break from politics wouldn't be out of order

The fact you put the President's image in the media before the countless deaths that will result from escalation in Afghanistan is a gobsmacking indication of moral vacuity. I can understand arguments for other reasons, like Pakistani stability in the face of a nuclear arsenal. There are various arguments to be made.

But I honestly cannot believe I read that OP. I really can't. I literally stared at the screen blinking for 30 seconds with the wind whistling through my ears in response to it.

To become so consumed by a politician and his image that you can put death, destruction, and endless billions in American treasure on the back burner in favor of worrying how Republicans and the media might portray the President during some future theoretical disaster is a surrender of all pretense of compassion or concern outside the realms of personality.

Usually I'm pretty good at grasping opposing arguments even though I don't agree with them. I cannot grasp this in the slightest. I still can't believe you wrote it. Not only wrote it, but then put it out in public.

[Techn0Girl]

39. I'll credit you this much...

"I'm not crazy.
I'm not even that wise."

I'll credit you this much: you're half-right.

[FrenchieCat]

44. You are quite snarky.

I like that.
It's cute.

[Techn0Girl]

31. The O.P. is unfortunately representative ....

of a mentality that has infected America for far too long. A mentality that Eisenhower warned us about. A mentality that unfortunately infests the left as well as the right.

[FrenchieCat]

38. You are correct.

That is exactly my point.
Because that is how easily Americans can be manipulated.
Doesn't take much. We've have seen this movie already.

[Moochy]

64. Well said

But I've long since stopped being amazed at the mental contortions of the pep squad here.

[FrenchieCat]

71. The anti-Pep squad is worse. They only cheer the negative!

[Forkboy]

77. She's been that way since November 4th, and she will never see it.

[rockymountaindem]

27. What you're saying is that this is a political decision

If an attack happened seven months from now, I'd bet big money that it is already so far along in the planning phase that dropping more bombs or shaking more hands with tribal leaders in Afghanistan wouldn't make one bit of difference. The only thing that could stop it would be law enforcement here in the USA or wherever the planners happened to be (remember how the 9/11 guys stewed around in Hamburg, Germany for so long?). Escalating or withdrawing from Afghanistan wouldn't have anything to do with it.

The political backlash in the event of another (God forbid) attack would be impossible to predict accurately and probably inevitable no matter what President Obama does now or in the future. With that in mind, he should do what is best for the United States and not make his decision based on your assertion that it would be political suicide in the unfortunate event of a bombing. So instead of asking him to make his decision based on vital interest and workability, you're suggesting that he has every reason to escalate basically to cover his ass in the event that the awful possibility of another attack is realized. That's basically what I take away from this post.

I am often cheered by your defense of President Obama against a lot of people who are really out to drag him and us down (IMHO), but I think you've gone a bridge to far here.

[FrenchieCat]

35. It is a presidential decision.....

What I'm saying is that he stated his view about Afghanistan while on the campaign trail, over and over again for a reason; because be believed what he was saying.

It is those here who would want him to betray his own words,
because they believe that peace is tetamount
and that he is making a mistake; politically, strategically, and morally,
who talk about this war as Obama's political undoing.

As for the fact that you have often cheered me, Thank you, and I have cheered you...
and just like I don't expect to agree with all that anyone has to offer, including the President,
I still have a right to speak my mind, which is what I am doing.

The difference though, is that I won't be saying this that I have said here over and over again...

it was a thought I had, and I decided to express it.

If that makes me gone a bridge too far, so be it.

[kid a]

32. Imagine an Afghan war escalating to 2012+, 2000+ more dead US, 10,000 more civilians

Imagine ANY terrorist attack here during that time.

The scenario you play out is the same.

The RW will blame Obama one way or the other.

It is my fundamental belief that we ARE safer without troops in Afghanistan.

I'd rather walk as a proud American facing a terrorist on my street, than knowing we are sending our soldiers to fight an un-winnable war against a invisible enemy, fueling the religious and nationalist hatred of the USA.

I think you have it wrong on this one Frenchie.
That is a scare tactic that I am not willing to honor.

[FrenchieCat]

36. I don't believe that Pres. Obama will approach this war in the way you describe.....

Although it is the way that a Cheney would.

I'm not attempting to scare anyone,
and believe you me, after all of my years on DU,
I know quite well that it takes much more than what I have relayed,
for anyone here to become frightened.
This is a place of hard knocks, so if I thought I could scare folks here,
I'd be nothing short of diluted.

I have read and responded to the views of others,
and I have decided to have my say.

I can't find anything really wrong with that.

[kid a]

41. I appreciate your replies and your posting this idea - it is a valid POV.

I am looking forward to hearing Obama's rational and to try to understand his strategy.

Happy Thanksgiving.

[FrenchieCat]

42. I want to hear what he has to say as well.

Happy thanksgiving!

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

45. Well it is obvious you didn't vote for him....

or there is a scarcasm thingie missing.

[kid a]

46. "arrogant", "over his head" and you are WAY too transparent

[RFKHumphreyObama]

50. He's between a rock and a hard place on this one Frenchie

I can very well imagine the situation you describe happening. One of the biggest mistakes that the Bush Senior and (to be fair) Clinton administrations made was not effectively keeping a close watch on the quagmire that opened up in Afghanistan following the withdrawal of the Soviet government. That in turn helped create the series of events that led to our deployment to Afghanistan in the first place. Obama knows that if he leaves Afghanistan to its own devices, the same situation may arise again with the consequences that you describe

That having been said, he also runs the risk that by increasing or maintaining the US presence in Afghanistan, he enters America into a situation where it remains there indefinitely with no route out. This also has the potential to make America vulnerable to terrorism, both in Afghanistan and also in the US, particularly if the US's sole purpose in being there is perceived by locals as propping up the corrupt and incompetent Karzai regime.

It's a potentially no-win situation and therefore one that he has to negotiate very carefully. I am very worried for him and I sincerely hope and pray that he will be able to find some way out of the quagmire that the * mis-administration left him. But then again there is no-one I trust more than Barack Obama to show the right type of judgment, knowledge and wisdom that is needed in his particular scenario

[FrenchieCat]

52. I agree.....and based on what he appears to believe on this,

he is willing to give it a try, because he does think that he can get it rectified rationaly. I believe that he has more faith in the Afghan people and what they want for their children in a long run. There isn't even any economy there, other than the poppy and the Flyover funds they receive. Unlike Iraq, there is no oil.

[Cha]

60. That you for that reasoned

analysis,RFK.

[cornermouse]

85. Clinton had his faults and he had his blind spots.

Afghanistan and the mideast was not one of them.

A short review of the facts...


Bill Clinton: I got closer to killing bin Laden
POSTED: 11:04 a.m. EDT, September 25, 2006
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/24/clinton.binladen...

U.S. missiles pound targets in Afghanistan, Sudan
Retaliation for bombing of U.S. embassies in eastern Africa
August 20, 1998
Web posted at: 5:53 p.m. EDT (2153 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01 /

Q: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_...

[RepublicanElephant]

56. it wouldn't even take this much effort to get the gop started.

look at ft. hood.

now image some olympic bomber scenario. or even someone blowing-up a trash dumpster while yelling "allahu akbar!!!"

it doesn't take take much for the wingnuts to whip things up to epic proportions and scare the crap out of americans.

the american people need to wise-up and know when they're being played.

[burning rain]

57. No-one thinks al-Qaeda or the other nasties in Afghanistan are harmless.

It doesn't take many US forces to prop up the regime in Kabul. We can interdict militant groups and prevent them from building up infrastructure in the rest of the country with air attacks and special forces. Most on the left would accept that--I certainly would. An escalation with 30,000+ more ground troops is another thing entirely. Whatever other results it has, it will greatly harm the Democratic Party. If we as a party come to Americans saying, "We kept you safe"--they, particularly lefties, are more liable to tot up the number of Americans killed in Afghanistan, than feel gratitude for terrorist attacks that didn't happen. The "we kept you safe" shpiel as a cover for excessive militarism stopped paying for Republicans in 2006, and it isn't going to work for Democrats. The GOP won't run as the peace party, of course, but many of our base will stay home on election day or go third party. Obviously we have to take adequate military action in Afghanistan, but escalation is completely unnecessary.

[showpan]

58. Imagine...

A country who's people have had enough.
Enough of the lies.
Enough of the poverty.
Enough of the sickness.
Enough of the corporations being counted as real people.
Enough of their taxes being given to the elite who run these corporations.
Enough of the meddling in other countries affairs so that corporations can make more money.
Enough of the regime changes and assasinations.
Enough of the corporations who bribe leaders into occupying thrid world countries
in order to obtain cheaper natural resources for increased profits.
Enough of the spilled blood of woman and children who just happen to be there.
Enough of the corporate policies that caused them to be attacked in the first place.
Enough of their freedoms being swindled away for the sake of a false security that will never be.
Enough of the fear.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

[HopeOverFear]

59. You're a brave woman, Frenchie

that's all I can say

[FrenchieCat]

61. When I have a thought that I need to express,

I'll be damned if the superior Kool Kids keep me from expressing it.
They speak of justifying their criticism and they also make speculations in the negative
all of the time,
and only Intellectually dishonest hypocrites would require that I shut up,
and sit down.

[HopeOverFear]

65. Right on. I heard that.

[Enthusiast]

125. I always thought FrenchieCat

was a man!

[FrenchieCat]

156. !

Not this year!

See FrenchieCat's Journal for proof: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/FrenchieCat

[Enthusiast]

157. Geesh!

You're not at all like a man.

[cherokeeprogressive]

62. AS IF there aren't people in this country who are capable of pulling off what your scenario suggests

Fighting a guerilla force on the other side of the world will not for one single minute make this country any safer than it is as I sit here.

There will be another terroristic incident within the borders of the United States. To think otherwise, or to think that the actions and policies of one man could prevent it is just whistling past the graveyard. Continuing a war in Afghanistan is in no way a safeguard.

[Moochy]

63. I'd rather Imagine Peace

But according to the the head of the pep squad it's best to structure US foreign policy on emotional reactions to baseless neocon fantasies.

[R. P. McMurphy]

66. k & r n/t

[treestar]

68. I've always thought there was little chance of another attack

and that the right wing was exaggerating it to gain the power they wanted for the unitary executive. The only 19 people willing to do such a thing for a century are dead. They had to be extremists. (not typical Muslims, as the right wing would have us believe).

But then it's always possible. There's that little nagging doubt. I've always prayed it would not happen again, during the chimpadministration, because it would give them more fuel for the fascist changes they wanted.

Now I really pray it won't happen. I don't want our current President blames for it and know the M$M media would.

My ideal scenario is that we find bin Laden alive or dead during Obama's administration. Talk about freeper heads exploding.

[CTLawGuy]

69. it's key to remember

that nobody gave a crap about the afghan war until Obama actually got into office. It's all of a sudden that it became a disasterous war of choice that we should have left yesterday.

[butterfly77]

70. They have already started their campaign for terror..

everyday on Fox they pound and pound him for not calling the Fort Hood tragedy terrorism. They want him to say it is so that they can say we were attacked on his watch.

They are now saying that because of the Fort hood incident that we can't have trials in New York. If some people have been watching the republiCONS over the past few year,hell over the past few months they should be able to see how these people work and spin things.

We are suppose to think that they the only ones who can fight against an enemy when they are the ones who put us in the situation we are in now and they are the ones who continue to create enemies for this country.

These neocons are all overseas plotting and planning how to sabatoge anything the President is trying to do but,they always claim to love this country...If they were in power now they would have already bombed Iran they are trying their best to get another war started.

They were afraid to call for the Draft when they were in office but now they are doing everything they can to get the President to call for a draft when they are the ones who started this shit..

[ZombieHorde]

73. The same scenario could happen, but replace Afghanistan with Iraq.

President Obama has been slowly withdrawing from Iraq, if a terrorist attack has ties to Iraq, your scenario could come true. Should we stay in Iraq just in case?

Now let us replace Afghanistan with Iran. "McCain was right, we should have bombed Iran." Should we attack Iran?

Your justification does not seem tight.

[FrenchieCat]

74. The OP I wrote wasn't a justification......

The justification for Obama doing what he is doing,
is the fact that Obama believes that he needs to do what he's going to do,
and told us well in advance, during the primaries in fact,
what he believed, and how he wanted to try to
finish this war that was neglected for 7 years.
So he is going to try, while some of us cry about it....
well ok.
It would be hard for me to support Barack Obama,
if his word on something like this was that iffy.....
where he would just shift with media orchestrated
public opinion and polls. That the Al Qeada that was worth fighting yesterday,
somehow, after Gallup said so, became a lost cause, not worthy of anything,
just pick up and leave (which of course is not going to happen).

What I was talking about is the fact that
those who somehow expected that Obama would miraculously
merge Iraq with Afghanistan, and gives us a 2 for 1 peace party
are the ones who are who should figure out what world do they live in,
cause there is no link to it and reality.

[ZombieHorde]

79. The argument in your OP and the argument in the above reply are quite different. nt

[tekisui]

78. For real?

If an attack occurs, it will be politicized no matter what decision Obama makes on Afghanistan. I don't think that escalating a lost war is a rational measure to take to prevent blame on a hypothetical future attack. That sounds very much like chimpy's argument for war in Iraq. Remember the evidence could come in the form of a mushroom cloud?

[knightinwhitesatin]

80. Imagine if our leaders

realized that bombing women and children and sending more troops like me (yes I am active duty) to war for a fourth time was not the best use of America's youth. Oh I'll go because I took an oath but my anger is building.

[FrenchieCat]

81. So why did you join?

Afghanistan has been going on for years,
neglected as it has been.

You supported it our presence there
as long as it was half ass,
or what?

[knightinwhitesatin]

82. Post 9/11 patriotism.......

a few tours in Iraq, watching my best friend die, and seeing what a waste war is have a way of changing your mind.

[FrenchieCat]

83. I can understand that.......

However, I believe that a war neglected for 7 years,
if we now don't even try, doesn't make 9/11 just go away......
it just makes it convenient for those who believe that
never trying is as good as we can get
feel better....
until the next time, that is.

I'd rather allow this President to try and do what he has said he will do,
give him a reasonable window, and then make a final assessment.
After all, I voted for him knowing full well what he said he would do on that.
Then at least, if shit happens, Americans will at least know
that this President tried regardless of public opinion being against him on this.
Of course, by then,
most will have developed convenient amnesia as to what they had themselves demanded.

Kinda of like what happened in WWII initially,
the fact that Americans, in the large majority weren't insterested in getting into a war,
and then after the war, they blamed the government for not getting involved early enough....
I found that too convenient for my taste as well.

[knightinwhitesatin]

84. My post in another thread is harsh

but I stand by it. I and people I know and love are going to be sent to try and fix an unwinnable situation. Vietnam was an unwinnable war, as was Iraq as is Afghanistan. All this surge will do is tarnish the President, kill more innocent Afghans and more American soldiers and Marines. We will be invaders trying to vanquish a civilian insurgency, just li