Know this: If escalation happens, "CHANGE" can't.

[Ken Burch]

Social progress and social change stops in this country ever time it goes to war.

So it was in World War I, a war started by an allegedly "Democratic" president in the name of supposedly liberal values. No progressive legislation was passed by Congress between 1914 and 1918.

So it was in World War II. Yes, THAT war was necessary(the last war in history that could be). But it was the death of the New Deal. There was economic planning in World War II, but that was a situation that couldn't be duplicated in any future war. Nor could anything like the G.I. Bill ever again emerge.

So it was in Korea. Harry Truman's "Fair Deal" ended, the Red Scare essentially banned the entire American Left(not just the Communists, but everyone who questioned racism, militarism, and corporate power).

And, as many here can remember from their own experience, so it was in Vietnam. Nothing progressive was even attempted by LBJ after the escalation started(the Voting Rights Act was the end of the line there).

If you back this war, you are agreeing to end the Obama Administration and return this country to conservatism. Change and war cannot go together. If you defend escalation, it's the same as if you want the election overturned, because nothing will happen after escalation that could possibly be different than what would have happened in a McCain-Palin administration again.

If the troop levels go up, they'll stay up until 2012(or possibly, God help us, 2016). History has proven that outside armies can never win in Afghanistan, so we can clearly assume that escalation will lead to more escalation, the volunteer force will give way to the draft, and the carpet bombing will go on and on and on. There can be no other outcome.

Don't send your dreams home in a flag-draped casket.

If you want "CHANGE", you MUST join all who oppose escalation.

[vaberella]

1. Uh, we are at war. It's not as though we are going. n/t

[Ken Burch]

2. We are at a level now where we could still get out.

With escalation, withdrawal becomes impossible(notice that we're still nowhere NEAR out of Iraq?)

And look how limited the Obama domestic program has already become due to the costs of the existing carnage?

A president that REALLY wanted change would admit this war was unwinnable and make withdrawal now into an act of leadership.

[vaberella]

4. Explain to me how we get out?! What is the best way? What number is too much for military?

The nation wasn't stellar before we went in, but you want us to leave the nation like we did Pakistan in the 80s. Do you have any idea the damned devestation we left behind, it took more than a decade for that country to get back on it's feet and it still has problems. That's why they didn't want our troops in their country when this mess started.

Yet, you, who considers yourself a leftist wants us out (and I'm not advocating staying in) leaving the nation in a far worse, dangerous to it's neighbors and our self interests mess because of our actions. How in the hell is that more humane? I never understand the left truly. We killed thousands of people and if we stay or not there is a good chance thousands more will die. We made a bloody mess and the way you talk about us leaving it doesn't even seem as though it's a responsible retreat. It's just let's pick up our things and go----and even if we were t retreat there would have to be a small increse in order to help with all the things that need to be done--severa thousand. And it's not something that's done in 3 months it will be several months to years maybe since we still have regions under threat. This is very complex situation.

I don't understand also how you can say "we are at a level where we can still get out" <---What the hell does that mean? Is there any level that exactly determines when we can or can't get out?! Hell no, you're arbitrarily picking something to fit an inane argument. That's nonsense. Plus we had more troops in Iraq and we're still getting out. So I don't get your point with that.

On this site I see people wanting to leave but without an exit plan of their own as a suggestion as to why, when, and how. Further more, there is nothing in their talk for nation building in Afghanistan----further more they act like Bush didn't leave a major mess and make this problem extremely complex.

This is not black and white. It's not, let's get the troops out and we're good. It doesn't work like that, and this is my problem with the whole move. I don't know myself is the best plan currently. Sure in the long run I want an end to the war. Everyone wants that, even Republicans (I'm sure). However, what is the best course of action is the problem. You don't know any better than anyone else and I'm tired of people acting as though they do. This added to the fact that I'm sure there is information only Obama is privy too---Which is NEVER factored into their statements.


As I said, I think 100% of people can agree we can not stay there indefinitely and doesn't want to stay there indefinitely. We don't have the man power, resources, or money to do bullshit like that. Further more, more death is unacceptable. However, we also can't leave the nation ravaged to the point of utter distruction and irreparable damage that the Bush Admin has left it, we can't try to do some sort of effort at nation building that the Obama administration has been tryhing to do. Another thing to point out. We've been wat war wth Afghanistan for like 9 years but have RECENTLY started nation building procedures during the actions of war. And no one here can say what would be the best plan and responsible plan of action.

]

[Ken Burch]

7. We start a negotiating process with the Taliban forces

(It's now clear they can't be wiped out militarily), using a carrot-and-stick process of trading economic and social support for signs of secularization and moderation.

I don't have the whole answers, but it is clear that escalation can't produce withdrawal. Escalation can only lead to MORE escalation, because the generals will always insist that more troops and more weapons are needed.

We are not ever going to be able to control events in Afghanistan. And yes, there will always likely be a lot of killing there. What we need to do is the hardest thing it is for this country's leaders to do, regardless of whichever party is leading the government: admit that there are limits to American power. And that, in Afghanistan, those limits have already been reached.

[FrenchieCat]

9. negotiating with the Taliban.....

Getting to the negotiating table with the Taliban
Nov. 23, 2009

The westerner most intimately familiar with the Afghan insurgents argues that only Nato's staying power will persuade them to cut a deal
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2009/nov/23/taliban-afghanistan


Meanwhile, the conventional wisdom among the military types in Halifax was that the Afghan surge would have to show success within a year, because of the political realities back home.

But a dissenting voice came from Michael Semple, a former UN and EU official with years of experience of talking to the Taliban. He believes the Taliban leadership in the Quetta Shura will only talk peace if they are convinced that Nato is prepared to stay indefinitely.

Semple says short term goals are counterproductive and that the number of troops are not as important as the political strategy they are in Afghanistan to support, and how long they were willing to stay.

He told the Halifax meeting: "There is eventually an end to the war but not one that is going to happen in 12 to 18 months."

When it comes down to it, this war is going to be decided over the decisions of fathers of Pashto young men who are being asked by Taliban commanders to give them their sons to go out and fight against the Afghan government. And at the moment the message that those Taliban commander recruiters are bringing is: give us our son - it's a great fight against the United States. It's a fight against the puppet regime and we're going to chase the Americans out and the puppet regime is going to be toppled.
It is the argument, the discussion in those houses which will decide the fate of Afghanistan and also stability inside of South Asia. And anything we can do to change the tenor of that discussion will help so that fathers of those Pashto young men say: that's what you said last year when you took my other son and he's dead and the Americans still haven't run away and the puppet regime still hasn't toppled and actually this year it looks less likely to topple.
That's the way that you can change the tenor of the debate, but I don't think it is going to be the 30 or 40 or 50,000 this year. It is going to be the impression that the commitment is long enough to ensure that there actually is stability in this country that will decide it.
snip

The paradox that Semple is suggesting is that the longer you are prepared to stay, the sooner you can get out.

Talking with the Taliban: Obama Draws Skepticism
Mar. 10, 2009
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883854,00.html

Obama To Accept Taliban In Afghanistan's Future: Senior Official
10/ 8/09 09:21 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/obama-to-accept-taliban-i_n_314506.html


US Officials Start To Negotiate With Taliban
10/10/09
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/us-officials-start-to-neg_n_315769.html

[LooseWilly]

45. Pipelineistan secure, & a negotiated peace with the Taliban. Win Win (?)

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/03/welcome-pipelineistan

...

Our good ol' friend the nonsensical "Global War on Terror," which the Pentagon has slyly rebranded "the Long War," sports a far more important, if half-hidden, twin—a global energy war. I like to think of it as the Liquid War, because its bloodstream is the pipelines that crisscross the potential imperial battlefields of the planet. Put another way, if its crucial embattled frontier these days is the Caspian Basin, the whole of Eurasia is its chessboard. Think of it, geographically, as Pipelineistan.
<snip>

For Dr. Zbig, who, like me, gets his fix from Eurasia—from, that is, thinking big—it all boils down to fostering the emergence of just the right set of "strategically compatible partners" for Washington in places where energy flows are strongest. This, as he so politely put it back then, should be done to shape "a more cooperative trans-Eurasian security system."

By now, Dr. Zbig—among whose fans is evidently President Barack Obama—must have noticed that the Eurasian train which was to deliver the energy goods has been slightly derailed. The Asian part of Eurasia, it seems, begs to differ.

Global financial crisis or not, oil and natural gas are the long-term keys to an inexorable transfer of economic power from the West to Asia. Those who control Pipelineistan—and despite all the dreaming and planning that's gone on there, it's unlikely to be Washington—will have the upper hand in whatever's to come, and there's not a terrorist in the world, or even a long war, that can change that.
<snip>

Ask any relevant expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing and he will tell you that the SCO should be understood as a historically unique alliance of five non-Western civilizations—Russian, Chinese, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist—and, because of that, capable of evolving into the basis for a collective security system in Eurasia. That's a thought sure to discomfort classic inside-the-Beltway global strategists like Dr. Zbig and President George H. W. Bush's national security advisor Brent Scowcroft.

According to the view from Beijing, the rising world order of the twenty-first century will be significantly determined by a quadrangle of BRIC countries—for those of you by now collecting Great Game acronyms, that stands for Brazil, Russia, India, and China—plus the future Islamic triangle of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Add in a unified South America, no longer in thrall to Washington, and you have a global SCO-plus. On the drawing boards, at least, it's a high octane dream.
<snip>

AMBO, short for Albanian Macedonian Bulgarian Oil Corporation, an entity registered in the U.S., is building a $1.1 billion pipeline, aka "the Trans-Balkan," slated to be finished by 2011. It will bring Caspian oil to the West without taking it through either Russia or Iran. As a pipeline, AMBO fit well into a geopolitical strategy of creating a U.S.-controlled energy-security grid that was first developed by President Bill Clinton's Energy Secretary Bill Richardson and later by Vice President Dick Cheney.

Behind the idea of that "grid" lay a go-for-broke militarization of an energy corridor that would stretch from the Caspian Sea in Central Asia through a series of now independent former SSRs of the Soviet Union to Turkey, and from there into the Balkans (thence on to Europe). It was meant to sabotage the larger energy plans of both Russia and Iran. AMBO itself would bring oil from the Caspian basin to a terminal in the former SSR of Georgia in the Caucasus, and then transport it by tanker through the Black Sea to the Bulgarian port of Burgas, where another pipeline would connect to Macedonia and then to the Albanian port of Vlora.
<snip>

<etc...>

Yes, obviously an escalation in Afghanistan is for the good of the Afghans, and to secure a peace... and the couple of bucks the new Afghanistan can earn for a pipeline running from Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, or some other energy rich 'stan', through Afghanistan... and out to a port in Pakistan (thus going around Iran)... well, that's just a coincidental perk.


In all seriousness, it's a savvy geopolitical move. Trying to sell it as some sort of liberal humanitarian issue is a mistake... sell it as cutthroat geopolitics and undermine the Republicans at their own game... then maybe the Obama administration will feel that they have the "political capital" to actually argue for a real public option and for a repeal of DADT and DOMA... so they can shore up at least some portion of their base on the left.
(Who am I kidding?... that's not going to happen, is it?)

[Robb]

14. Again, as I've been pointing out all morning

...we already tried leaving in 1989. It didn't work out.

It's a lot easier to negotiate peace when your troops are on the ground. Especially if they're actually building schools and roads, instead of pretending to for "PR moments."

You put 80K U.S. soldiers on the ground and put half of them to work, you'd see a very different country in six months.

[ShortnFiery]

25. Hello? The Troops are trained to KILL and Die in "war" not for the purpose of "nation building."

We have NO MORAL RIGHT to be occupying two Muslim Nations. The peoples of the MI despise us having OUR MILITARY running the show in their sovereign countries. It's time to declare "victory" (no bin Laden nor al Qaeda = original mission) and get the hell out of that hell hole.

[Robb]

36. Read a little history.

We broke it, we bought it. :(

[ShortnFiery]

26. What you call "leftist strategy" is most sane. Being in the middle of a Civil War in

Afghanistan has ZERO PROBABLITY of turning out well in less than say, 50 years. :grr:

But no, we'll continue to prop up the THUG, Hamid Karzai, aka The Mayor of Kabul against THE NATIVE elements of the area, The Taliban.

Anything OTHER than a "complete withdraw" of USA and NATO combat troops is INSANITY.

Every day we remain there, Afghanis and Americas are LESS SAFE. :nuke:

[vaberella]

42. Actually there is no strategy---that's explained by the OP.

unless you listen to the OP who suggested we negotiate with the Taliban---which was already stated as something we're doing or have been doing. That being said---no one has a sane strategy let alone you. You haven't even suggested anything. And just leaving---if that is your suggestion is assinine. I call your attention to Pakistan during the 80s, Grenada during the 80s/90s. You don't go in there, fuck it up, leave it when it gets too hot because you were arrogant and think you're out of danger. Blowback can happen post an incident----think of Chile where they still want crimes paid for and they have a right to them. All in all your suggestion makes no sense. We don't leave them in chaos when WE CREATED IT!!! Do you understand?! You say it's lost and then you wash your hand of it. I see comments like that similar to the words of Pontius Pilate---heartless and inhumane and I see many on the "so-called left" the same way. If I consider myself a leftist, I don't want to be aligned with people like you

[ClarkUSA]

52. Pardon me, but didn't you also criticize Pres. Obama for his bow to the Japanese emperor?

Just curious. Forgive me for interrupting your rant.

[Ken Burch]

65. My point wasn't about the bow, but about turning down the invitation to Hiroshima

My point was that if most Americans could live with the bow, they could've lived with visiting the remnants of what the Bomb did.

[ClarkUSA]

81. Nevertheless, I recall you strongly criticized him for bowing to the Emperor.

I remember being very surprised at how strong your OP reaction was.

[knightinwhitesatin]

15. Actually I'm at war

most Americans are not. And actually I stand corrected, I don't remember when war was declared. Could someone link me to the Congressional declaration of war?

[ShortnFiery]

28. +1

I'm doing my best to encourage the DU armchair warriors to either enlist or join Contractor forces in Afghanistan. They come up with all sorts of excuses - but won't process the fact that the MIC "contracting agents" will sign-up ANY WARM BODY that is basically ambulatory.

I'm disgusted with so many people who want to send our youth to go kill and die in a HOPELESS Civil War but won't pay *any price* for all the suffering that will undoubtedly ensue on the part of our troops and the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire of our "pretty weapons."

If we escalate ... which we will, you can bet good money that "al Qaeda" cells will be activated all over the WORLD. But these same "democratic" hawks are going to bitch and moan and blame us liberal democrats when the average unknowing and afraid American is going to flock to the polls and elect republicans.

Don't blame us hawkish "democrats" because it's on YOU and President Obama. YOU and The President did not have the moral courage to realize that these occupations are un-winnable and that every day we occupy Muslim nations, we are less safe, i.e. there are al Qaeda cells all over the world.

No, I love our military and it "kicks ass" (Win every battle) wherever it is sent, but winning against al Qaeda, et. al. other radical terrorists, does not include OCCUPYING sovereign nations.

[Ken Burch]

37. +1,000,000,000,000!

No one who defends escalation has any right(if they're of military age)to refuse to volunteer for front-line military service or to shield their kids from the same.

(I will, however, help those kids and any others who want to avoid the inevitable draft make it to Canada or wherever they'll be safe from their parents insanity. Support for escalation, if you have kids of military age, is essentially child abuse.)

[closeupready]

111. +1

n/t

[salguine]

72. I think declarations of war have been considered "quaint" since 1945.

[ShortnFiery]

24. Uh, CONGRESS has not declared "War." We are occupying two Muslim Nations.

And every day we keep combat troops IMMORALLY within those two sovereign nations, Americans are LESS SAFE both at home and abroad.

But NO, Congress has abdicated it's responsibilities --> we are NOT "at war." :grr: :thumbsdown:

[vaberella]

43. And you're spouting semantics. Check the words of the OP. You should tell the OP this.

If I were to agree that we're not at war then an additional 30,000 troops is not adding to the war. No one is saying it's not immoral but from what I can see it's even more immoral to leave them in chaos.

[Zynx]

3. To say that World War II killed off all progressive legislation is just not correct.

World War II arguably helped accelerate the onset of the Civil Rights movement.

[Ken Burch]

5. I meant it killed it off for the duration of the Roosevelt Administration

There weren't any further gains until the post-1948 part of the Truman Administration, which were then stopped after 1950 and the pointless decision to push into Korea.

Then it was a dead zone legislatively(despite the heroic struggles of the Civil Rights movement from below)until, really, 1964 and 1965, coming to a stop again in 1966.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. The government arguably exerted more control over the economy during WWII than in the 1930's

Sure the goods being produced were for the war but unemployment dropped to almost nothing. Our economic policy during World War II was in many ways Keynesianism on steroids.

Oh and don't forget the GI bill.

[Ken Burch]

8. The planned economy in World War II was a one-off.

Nothing like that can ever emerge from a wartime situation again.

If that was repeatable, we'd have had full-employment economies during Korea and Vietnam. We were nowher close to either in either war. And that obviously didn't occur again in the Iraq War situation.

And nothing like the G.I. Bill either.

World War II was the last progressive war in history. At least in terms of any war OUR troops could ever be a part of. The Cold War made our military a permanent force for the preservation of greed and inequality. There are many decent people serving, but other than disaster relief, Or defense of our own territory, there is nothing the military can do anymore that isn't reactionary.

The Pentagon will never be on the side of the people.

[girl_interrupted]

10. I think those who want further escalation, should enlist

I really do. And their kids too. I think that's only fair. Let the soldiers who have already been serving, through the mind numbing back door drafts, of one tour after another, get a break. Let these people fill in for them. Problem solved. They can support the escalation in "person".

[eleny]

20. I'm with you on that and posted it the other day

It's a fair request, imo. Pom pom waving is just not enough at this point. It's heartless and to be without conscience to support escalation without putting ones own skin on the line.

[avaistheone1]

99. If the folks themselves who are pumped up for this war can't go, please send one of your family

members. In fact send one of your kids if you want this war so bad, because they will be many fighters there who are merely children. Then it will be a somewhat fair playing field.

It sounds like DU has a healthy share of chickenhawks.

[AllentownJake]

11. Not really true about WWII

World War II in itself was a progressive action. That Hitler guy.

America responded to the Great Depression with FDR, Germany responded with Hitler.

Of course this war isn't really World War II and the Taliban and Al Quaeda aren't the equivalent threat to world stability the Nazis were.

[Ken Burch]

22. I didn't say World War II itself was unprogressive or wrong

I said progressive change at home stopped, at least on the legislative level.

[DonkeyHoTay]

27. You are right, Ken

The entire focus of the nation turned to the war effort.

[quaker bill]

12. There are plenty of reasons to oppose war

always plenty of reasons. I do not count this among them. The civil rights act, the voting rights act, and the "great society" programs were all passed during VietNam.

One is never so far into a war that one cannot get out. There can always be another outcome, and that outcome will be obtained well before there is a draft.

The carpet bombing in Afghanistan happened years ago, as there are no massed forces left, this tactic has little use there and will not be employed.

You are correct that Afghanistan has proven to be an intractible morass for army upon army throughout history. I am pretty sure President Obama and the generals in command are sufficiently versed in military history to fully grasp this fact. Therefore I expect there will be a plan, as in Iraq, to promptly begin to turn the country over to its own armed forces, irreversibly.

If nothing else, the last election there proves that any hope of turning the country over to a legitimate westernized government is lost. The question remaining to be answered is which war-lords do you turn the coutry over to on your way out. I think the point of increasing troop strength is to demonstrate undeniably that we are the party the war-lords need to strike a deal with, little more.

Long haul, the country will revert to a weakly central-governed collection of small territories. Bin Laden will be dead and we will be gone.

[AllentownJake]

13. Over the past 8 years

We did everything Bin Laden wanted. If he is still alive, he must be smiling at the havoc he wrought on the world with 19 men and a few box cutters.

[quaker bill]

53. I would not argue with you on that.

However, the current political math is quite simple. As President, if we leave Afghanistan without killing Bin Laden and there is another attack, you are toast politically. In short,if you leave without killing him, you put the political future of your administration and this country in Bin Laden's hands. No sane President would risk this. However, if you kill him and can prove you did, then even if there is another attack, the potential for political survival is far better, because you can say with some credibility that you will hunt down the attackers, and having done it once, many will believe you.

Bush created this quagmire and I am convinced that the path out necessarily involves Bin Laden's corpse. I am also convinced that we will continue frying Al-Queda middle management with hellfire missles until someone gives him up or we find him on our own. It is entirely likely that we will pick up the pace on this front. With Karzai now a proven crook, I expect the mission in reality boils down to this and little else. It will be painted up as something a tad more grand sounding, but bottom line, once Bin Laden is dead we will be leaving rather swiftly.

I expect the all the local war-lords will be getting this message loud and clear. Want to run your little village and opium operation without American interference? Then give him up.

[Avalux]

16. Why not? The war started long before Obama took office.

Why can't "change" be a concrete exit strategy; send more troops now but have a date when we get the hell out instead of this open-ended bullshit.

Remember the goal of the neocons/PNACers.

You are focusing on short-term troop escalation; I am more interested in the exit strategy, which is indeed change.

[Phx_Dem]

17. Dumbest post yet. Change is about more than one war which,

by the way, Obama promised to finish.

I'm so sick of people claiming everything "is not change!" Whaaaaa. :cry:

So, in order to have change, EVERYTHING FUCKING THING IN AMERICA has to change? Is that it?

:puke:

[treestar]

18. Black and white thinking

And the usual obsession with one issue. We were returning to conservatism because of the Stupak amendment last week. Now it's Afghanistan, which you weren't worried about last week. Next week it'll be something new. The sky is falling, of course.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. Maybe we are returning to conservatism BECAUSE it is something new every week

Each of these issues you dismiss as childish trivia are deal-breakers for people.

Different issues are deal-breakers for different people.

So it might be good to not dump on a different segment of one's political coalition every week because it has a cumulative effect.

[treestar]

104. No one should be concerned with only one issue

It's unrealistic and in fact selfish.

Look at voters who vote Repuke only because of abortion and their beliefs against it. They don't care how many wars we get into, don't care if the economy goes south or if people are living on the streets, and are even willing to suffer themselves, all to "save" those lives.

It's evil no matter what the single issue. Usually it's illogical, claiming that the entire world boils down to one's pet issue. A sort of self centered-ness.

[Ken Burch]

23. I've been worried about Afghanistan all along, I just didn't post as much about it last week

n/t.

[LWolf]

21. K & R nt

[Ken Burch]

40. Thanks. Appreciate the support

The "Adult Children of LBJ" types are out in force on this thread.

[LWolf]

44. Glad to chime in.

But then, I was raised on the concept of peace as an organizing principle.

:hi:

[jenmito]

29. Unrec. Funny that nobody brought that up when he ran on both "change" AND increasing troop #s in

Afghanistan.

[mcablue]

30. Did Obama really vow to increase troops #'s there during the campaign?

I haven't seen that one included in the list of promises. Can you point to it?

[jenmito]

32. Yes. Here ya go:

From July 21, 2008: "I think one of the biggest mistakes we've made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq," he said.

Obama said troop levels must increase in Afghanistan.

"For at least a year now, I have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three," he told CBS. "I think it's very important that we unify command more effectively to coordinate our military activities. But military alone is not going to be enough."


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/20/obama.afghanistan/

[mcablue]

35. How many troops are there in a brigade?

I'm not familiar with the composition of a brigade. Are 30,000 troops consistent with "two or three" brigades?

[jenmito]

46. I have no idea. The point is he said he was going to add troops. n/t

[5thGenDemocrat]

115. A brigade is typically 3000 to 5000 troops

In shorthand (there are exceptions of course), three or four companies make a battalion, three or four battalions make a brigade, three or four brigades make a division and so on.
So the short answer to your question is "no, not even close."
John
My basic training battalion had five companies, so what I said above isn't chiseled in stone. But it works okay for estimations.

[Unvanguard]

34. Maybe someone should have. It was true then too. n/t

[jenmito]

47. And yet he managed to win as the "change" candidate anyway. n/t

[Unvanguard]

49. He was worth voting for anyway. That is not the point. n/t

[jenmito]

54. It most definitely IS the point. It destroys the OP's theory. n/t

[Unvanguard]

55. So from "More Americans wanted Obama president than John McCain"

it somehow follows that "'Change' and escalation are consistent"?

How exactly does that work? You seem to be ignoring the facts that (a) it is perfectly possible to have voted for Obama despite disagreeing with some of his positions and that (b) in any case, truth is not up to a popular vote.

Edit: Further, Obama's actual campaign promise was to add two brigades. This has been done. If he escalates the war more, that is his independent decision as president, not a necessary consequence of the platform he campaigned on.

[jenmito]

56. Yup. The OP claims that "change" cannot happen if Obama adds troops to Afghanistan.

And no, his promise was to add at LEAST two brigades. I just read this from an article: "...There's a book that's considered required reading at the White House, probably because the president recommends it. Gordon Goldstein's "Lessons in Disaster" is the story of the Vietnam War through the eyes of former national security adviser McGeorge Bundy. And it's a story of a decision-making apparatus run amok.

Not surprisingly, it seems that Obama sees himself as more President John F. Kennedy than President Lyndon Johnson: that when it comes to the use of force, all the pressure in the world cannot match the president's authority --and responsibility -- to decide independently..."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/24/borger.obama.tipping.point/index.html#cnnSTCText

Just the fact that he's doing that is proof of change.

Whenever Obama spoke about what he wanted to do in Afghanistan, he got applause. It's not like he hid it or changed it. He, unlike Bush, plans to concentrate on the situation in Afghanistan, have a plan for it, and finally get our troops out. If you don't consider that change, I can't help you.

[Unvanguard]

61. Are you being disingenuous?

Do you really think that when the OP referred to "CHANGE" in all capital letters and with quotation marks around it, he or she meant the trite "conduct not identical to Bush's" rather than the specific "substantive social progress of the sort we hoped Obama would bring"?

[jenmito]

63. Nope. Not at all...

I simply pointed out that Obama is not following in Bush's footsteps OR LBJ's footsteps, and that he campaigned on "change" while simultaneously telling us his plan for Afghanistan. We were already in Afghanistan before Obama came into office and guess what-Obama can, will, and already HAS made change even though we're there.

[Ken Burch]

66. War is always the opposite of Change.

n/t.

[Ken Burch]

77. No it doesn't. Peace people voted for Obama and vowed to work against the wars

We did NOT accept that change and war could go together.

There's no way you could seriously argue that escalation and domestic liberalism could ever go together again. That's why the GOP and the DLC are so big on war: they know that war stops change from here on in.

[jenmito]

80. Huh. I don't recall anyone who supported Obama complaining about his position on Afghanistan.

I saw nobody protesting it nor claiming change isn't possible due to his position on Afghanistan. :shrug:

[Ken Burch]

86. Then you weren't listening.

Besides, people could have changed their minds since then, as it became clearer that the war was unwinnable.

It's just silly to argue that if you weren't spending every moment denoucing the war during the campaign, or that if you voted for Obama, you have no right to be outraged now or to be speaking against the war now.

Would you have argued that nobody who voted for LBJ in '64 had any legitimacy in opposing escalation in Vietnam?

[jenmito]

89. I was listening and watching all the time. I didn't see any outrage at all.

I'm sure that Obama knows more about the war in Afghanistan than YOU do and has made his decision based on everything he knew, learned, read, heard, etc. I, along with everyone I know and everyone I saw cheering him on as he spoke about his position on Afghanistan, believed THEN and still believe NOW that he will do what's best.

I'm too young to know about LBJ and Vietnam. But Obama knows much more about it and has learned from it. That's more important than what I know about it.

[Ken Burch]

39. A lot of us did. And once again, voting for Obama doesn't mean forfeiting the right to oppose

An insane war.

Escalation can't be part of an exit strategy. It never is.

[jenmito]

48. Yet he ran and won as the "change" candidate. The fact he wanted to put in more troops

was not a surprise. And nobody's SAYING you don't have the right to oppose the war. But you don't have the right to make up your own facts. It's a fact that he ran saying he'd add more troops and WON saying he'd add more troops. You opposed him THEN, you oppose him NOW. He won THEN and he'll probably win again.

[Ken Burch]

64. Opposing the war doesn't mean opposing the president

I VOTED for Obama.

I can support him as president and still oppose the war.

Got that?

[jenmito]

70. When I said you opposed him then and oppose him now, I was talking about

his position on the war. You opposed it THEN and you oppose it NOW. So why don't you replace the words "him" with "his position on the war" and respond to my post again?

[Ken Burch]

75. What's your point? Why does it matter if I ALWAYS opposed the war?

You make it sound like that's something I've kept secret. I haven't. And my consistent opposition to it doesn't discredit me.

You're just trying to rationalize the support you're going to give to more pointless killing.

[jenmito]

79. No-YOU make it sound like the increase in troops is something OBAMA kept secret

while running, successfully, on "change." My point is he can and will increase troop levels while continuing to make changes that he campaigned on. I'm not trying to rationalize anything. I supported his position on Afghanistan THEN and I support it NOW. I believed, at the same time, he was running as a candidate of change THEN and I believe that NOW.

[Ken Burch]

98. There was nothing in the campaign, if you're going to be honest

That could possibly equate to sending 34,000 more troops. He said a couple of brigades. "Brigades" don't have 17,000 troops apiece.

And a lot of us were hoping he'd see sense or else at least realize that he didn't need to send a massive number of troops over just to look "tough". That kind of toughness we can't morally afford anymore. World War II was the last acceptable time for that.

[jenmito]

102. If YOU'RE going to be honest, you wouldn't say that.

He said he'd add at least 2 brigades. And your claim that he's sending troops "just to look 'tough'" makes you sound silly. Do you REALLY believe that's the reason he's doing what he's doing? And how do you explain his position of needing an exit strategy? Tough guys don't HAVE exit strategies.

[HughMoran]

31. "goes"

first sentence fail

[Ken Burch]

38. It was late and I'm wearing my backup glasses. Deal with it.

Is that all you got?

[Unvanguard]

33. That's probably true, because of the cost if nothing else. It's an either/or deal.

You might say "We have to win in Afghanistan, and we need more troops to do it." You might even be right. But you should recognize that it will come at the cost of any potential new domestic programs, and probably to the detriment of existing ones.

[johnaries]

41. Medicare was passed AFTER escalation began in Vietnam.

The reason that Johnson couldn't pass any more "Great Society" bills was because Dems lost seats, not because of the war.

You are confusing cause and effect with coincidence. May I point out that Bushco managed to do plenty of damage while fighting 2 wars. Enough damage that it cannot be ondone in 10 months, or a year, or perhaps even 4 years.

[David Zephyr]

50. It's truly fascinating seeing the pro-war faction here feverishly unrec threads.

Fascinating.

Here's my K&R, but I'm certain it won't matter.

[ClarkUSA]

51. Funny, no one was saying this last year when Candidate Obama campaigned on this issue.

I didn't hear anything like this earlier this year, either.

Outrage of the Month, anyone? :eyes:

[jenmito]

57. I said the same thing! It IS funny, isn't it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=22016&mesg_id=22496

[ClarkUSA]

59. lol! Hell yeah. It's so hypocritical but who cares when we have the Obama Outrage of the Month?

GMTA :fistbump:

[jenmito]

60. Yeah, I guess some people always need SOMETHING to keep them going...

and sadly for them, that "something" is faux outrage against our president.

Yup-GMTA! :toast:

[Ken Burch]

78. The outrage is sincere and deep. Accompanied by sadness

Why would you think escalation could possibly be sane?

We all KNOW the war is unwinnable. You can't actually believe Afghanistan could have a "John Wayne ending".

(Remember, the actual John Wayne never fought in an actual war.)

[ClarkUSA]

83. Where was the "outrage" last year when Candidate Obama campaigned on this issue?

:shrug:

[Ken Burch]

85. I was against the war then and said so.

I wasn't obligated to vote against Obama to PROVE I was against the war.

I'm as loyal to the man as you are. It's because antiwar Dems are loyal that we're speaking out. This war can only lead to the man's political collapse.

[jenmito]

88. "This war can only lead to the man's political collapse." This is your opinion. Nothing more. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

90. Then why don't I recall an "outrage" OP from you or anyone last year over this issue?

Do you have a link to any? I sure don't recall "sincere and deep" objections last year at ll and neither does anyone else I know.

[jenmito]

93. I did a search in the archives and not ONE OP against or even about Obama's Afghanistan

policy. As a matter of fact, he SUPPORTED Obama (after Kucinich was out) and check out Ken Burch's "outrage" he showed about Obama's position on Afghanistan (there was none):

Ken Burch Sat Jun-28-08 03:09 PM

Original message

Can we all agree that it CAN'T be acceptable for Obama to go to the right on any more issues?

Edited on Sat Jun-28-08 03:11 PM by Ken Burch
Can we all at least agree that he has to stay as progressive as he is now to be worth electing?

I'll work for him regardless, but we all know it would be a waste of time to elect him and not have him be even an inch to the left of Bill.

And remember, he has a big lead to in the polls, so we can't actually cite desperation.

It isn't enough to just elect somebody who CALLS himself a Democrat. We learned that that was worthless in '92.
------------------------
Ken Burch

96. Well, this week was middle enough. There's nothing else he needs to go there on.

The anti-Iraq War thing has to stay sacred.
------------------------------

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6423026#6423059

[Ken Burch]

96. It doesn't matter what people said DURING the campaign

A lot of people probably also deferred to the "don't dissent during the campaign" mantra that the party leadership drummed away on.

I'm against the war now. I was against it then. Whether I posted it in DU that posts that remain in the archives now doesn't matter. And there's no reason for you to be fixated on WHEN people spoke against the war.

And my points on it being wrong for Obama to move further right are valid. He never needed to move to any less-progressive positions during the campaign, especially after the bank collapse made his victory inevitable on ANY program.

If you're arguing that a person had to vote for Nader or McKinney to be considered a valid antiwar voice now, you're out of line.

Besides, the opinions of anyone who did vote for them would likely be dismissed by you as sour grapes or craziness or something. Even though those people(wrong as they were to cast those votes)are as entitled to express their views now as anyone else.

Your whole argument on who said what when verges on McCarthyism.

[jenmito]

101. When asked where your outrage was back then, you said, " I was against the war then and said so."

A search of your posts said you did NOT say so. The only thing you seemed to be against was if Obama would've moved from his position against the IRAQ war. Where were all your cries about Obama not being able to "make change" or "be change" if he kept his position on the Afghanistan war? There was none.

[Ken Burch]

106. The fact that I may not have expressed it IN DU doesn't mean I was ok with escalation

Why are you so fixated with what people felt during the campaign?

Almost no Democrats mentioned Vietnam during the 1964 campaign. Does that mean Eugene McCarthy(who voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution)and Robert Kennedy(who helped start the earliest stages of the war)and Students for a Democratic Society(some of whose chapters ENDORSED LBJ in '64)were all indulging in "fauxrage"?

[jenmito]

107. You claimed you spoke up about it DURING THE CAMPAIGN right on this

thread. Are you now saying you weren't talking about "on DU"?

(bolding mine)
jenmito 29. Unrec. Funny that nobody brought that up when he ran on both "change" AND increasing troop #s in

Afghanistan.


Ken Burch 39. A lot of us did. And once again, voting for Obama doesn't mean forfeiting the right to oppose

An insane war.

Escalation can't be part of an exit strategy. It never is.

-----------------------------------------
And THIS exchange:

ClarkUSA 51. Funny, no one was saying this last year when Candidate Obama campaigned on this issue.

I didn't hear anything like this earlier this year, either.

Outrage of the Month, anyone? :eyes:


Ken Burch 67. Tons of people spoke on this last year. Nobody gave Obama a pass

We hated it and voted for him in spite of this.

Opposing the war is not "Obama Outrage of the Month".

I support Obama and oppose the war. And there's no conflict in those stances. The war is the enemy of any hopes of enacting Obama's program.

[Ken Burch]

108. I spoke up about it in other places. And a lot of people did speak about it here

And again, it doesn't matter WHEN people spoke about it. There's never been any reason for you to dwell on that point at all. Supporters of the carnage aren't the ones who get to decide if opponents of it are operating out of valid conviction or not.

You're acting like a Bush supporter.

[jenmito]

109. You were HERE on a political website and didn't mention it HERE. You said you DID

speak out against it when a couple of us asked where your outrage was back then. Now when you've been proven wrong, you claim you DID speak out about it but not HERE? That's not even believable.

You're acting like a Repub. strategist-and failing. You don't pass the laugh test.

[Ken Burch]

110. There's no good reason for you to dwell on this point when it doesn't matter

n/t.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

114. Deleted sub-thread

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

[jenmito]

84. I didn't see the supposed outrage. And why would I think "escalation could possible be sane"?

Because Obama has taken months to make his decision which we will hear Tuesday night, and it's going to be more than just a certain number of additional troops that he talks about. As I posted above:

"...There's a book that's considered required reading at the White House, probably because the president recommends it. Gordon Goldstein's "Lessons in Disaster" is the story of the Vietnam War through the eyes of former national security adviser McGeorge Bundy. And it's a story of a decision-making apparatus run amok.

Not surprisingly, it seems that Obama sees himself as more President John F. Kennedy than President Lyndon Johnson: that when it comes to the use of force, all the pressure in the world cannot match the president's authority --and responsibility -- to decide independently..."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/24/borger.obama.tipping.point/index.html#cnnSTCText

I am in no way comparing Obama's decision to a "John Wayne ending." And I don't think Obama's going for that, either.

[Ken Burch]

68. It's only the RIGHT that does "Obama outrage of the month".

We're pro-Obama and anti-escalation. Those of us who speak out against the war here would do so no matter who was president.

[Ken Burch]

67. Tons of people spoke on this last year. Nobody gave Obama a pass

We hated it and voted for him in spite of this.

Opposing the war is not "Obama Outrage of the Month".

I support Obama and oppose the war. And there's no conflict in those stances. The war is the enemy of any hopes of enacting Obama's program.

[ClarkUSA]

91. Really? Then why were there not dozens of Outrage OPs last year on this issue?

Just curious. :shrug:

[Ken Burch]

92. You're being childish.

Nobody on THIS site is against the war just because they have an obsessive need to be outraged at President Obama. Those here who oppose the war do so because we actually ARE against the war. Is there a reason you can't accept that it actually is that straightforward?

Speaking for myself, I like a lot of what the president has done. There's no reason for you to assume others who are critical of the war on DU feel much differently. And there's never been any reason for anyone to think that those who oppose the war or who want the president to be more progressive are part of some nefarious plot. The idea is as silly as the old Benchlyite claim that those who supported Ned Lamont against Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary were conspirators in a G.O.P.-Green conspiracy against the Democratic Party. That was a lie and any accusations of disloyalty to the party now are smears.

It's the RIGHT that is angry at Obama for the sake of being angry at Obama. It isn't anybody on the Left.

[jenmito]

95. I did a search of your posts and couldn't find ANY displaying outrage or any anger at Obama's

Afghan policy.

[otohara]

94. Quite The Opposite -

when he spoke about the forgotten war and how important it was to defeat the fucking Taliban, I remember cheers and applause.

[RollWithIt]

58. I guess you just didn't pay attention to the campaign? unrec

You know, the campaign where Obama said he would pull troops out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan because that's where the real terrorists are? I mean, he said it DOZENS and DOZENS of times. Missed that?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

62. WTF does that have to do with anything?

I would have voted for Obama even if he promised to shoot my dog.

The OP can say a policy sucks without this "your vote is a suicide pact" bullshit.

[Ken Burch]

69. Indeed. No one can seriously argue that everyone who voted for Obama

voted for escalation as well.

[Aramchek]

71. A Mind is a terrible thing to waste, yet you did it anyway

[Ken Burch]

87. You've just admitted you have no argument to make in defense of escalation

Enjoy watching the body bags come home.

[grasswire]

73. Wes Clark wants us out -- let him manage the whole shebang

I trust General Clark to do the right thing all the way around -- for Afghanistan, for America, and most of all for our GIs.

And if he says we should get out, I believe him.

[ClarkUSA]

82. That's false.He never said that. He said he wanted exit plans after Obama had already asked for them

:)

[FrenchieCat]

97. Gen. Wes Clark wants an exit strategy.......he ain't saying cut and run tomorrow......

You've got to “figure out where you’re going," Clark told the House Armed Services subcommittee on oversight and investigations. "How do we get out of here? Because our presence long term there is not a good thing. We’re playing into the hands of people who don’t like foreigners in a country that’s not tolerant of diversity. And that’s not going to change.”

Clark pressed Congress to begin devising an exit strategy from the country. He said that the US should strengthen its relationship with Pakistan and work with the Pakistani government to target al Qaeda, while diminishing its presence in neighboring Afghanistan. He also argued that economic development in Afghanistan was important.

If the US were to increase its forces in Afghanistan, Clark said, a exit strategy should be in place first.
http://rawstory.com/2009/11/gen-wesley-clark-calls-exit-afghanistan/

------------------------------------------
Submitted by marinerfan on November 21, 2009 - 8:01pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/18134
All of these articles written about General Wes' testimony were misleading. They all seemed to want to steer people to thinking Wes was saying "get out now". At least it did to me. It kind of reminded me of the campaign, and after, how Wes' words were often cherrypicked....and after hearing the context...well...you all know. :)

I had an inkling the whole story was not being told when in the one article they mentioned Wes discussing growing something besides poppies. Like wheat, perhaps? I live in one of the largest....if not the largest....bread baskets of wheat in the world. I have an idea what it takes to grow wheat. First off the poppies would, probly, be considered invasive weeds and would have to be irradicated. The soil sterilized and the winter wheat would have to have been planted "yesterday" to get a yield by the end of next summer. Then there was the thought that came to my mind of armor plated combines. Hmmmmm. So. I needed to hear Wes' words myself. I'm so glad we were able to. Anyways..... Now I'll be watching to see if this adm heeds Wes' words. Here are a few articles I've read just since Wes' testimony:

A softer approach to Karzai

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111903992_pf.html

This gentleman, Ashraf Ghani. I saw him on The NewsHour a couple of weeks ago. I thought at the time, after hearing him, that it was too bad he wasn't elected prez. James Carville ran his campaign, apparently...which is interesting in itself. Then I read this article by him a couple days later:

Please Send More Than Troops

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/10/Please_Send_More_Than_Troops

Clinton Seen as Obama’s Key Link to Afghan Leader

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/world/asia/20clinton.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Hillary%20Clinton&st=cse

And then there's Pakistan:

Zardari in the Crosshairs

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/13/zardari_in_the_crosshairs

Pakistani Politics Take on a Nationalist Tone

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/world/asia/20mood.html?_r=1

This is a good site for all differing opinions and reporting on "AfPak". It's a collaberation of Foreign Policy and Steve Clemons' foundation, The New America Foundation:

The AfPak Channel

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/afpak

[boppers]

74. Know this: If escalation happens, "CHANGE" can't.

Know this: If DOMA still happens, "CHANGE" can't.
Know this: If EFCA happens, "CHANGE" can't.
Know this: If Insurance reform happens, "CHANGE" can't.

I think I see a pattern here.

[Ken Burch]

76. Nothing short of repealing DOMA and EFCA could possibly be CHANGE

for LGBT people and for LGBT people and others who actually work for a living.

Union rights can't be restored incrementally.

[boppers]

100. Wow, uhm, EFCA isn't law.

I was referring to Employee Free Choice Act...

What are you talking about?

[Ken Burch]

105. I was referring to the necessity of PASSING EFCA

I know it isn't law yet. I was pointing out that nothing short of passing it will be meaningful change for working people who want to be in a union.

In hindsight, I could have phrased that initial response differently.

Still, it's weird that you seem to think that repealing DOMA and passing EFCA are trivial side issues.

[boppers]

116. Anything less than PONY passing is a failure of CHANGE.

You've made your point, and I've made mine.

Unless you get everything on your agenda covered, you will consider the whole thing a failure. I get it. I've lived it.

I had parents like that, once.

I don't talk to them anymore, as abusive relationships are bad and wrong.

[Ken Burch]

117. It's EXTREMELY offensive that you'd compare the insistence

that nothing short of EFCA and the repeal of DOMA to an "abusive relationship".

You've just insulted anyone who was ever a victim of domestic violence.

Why would you pretend that anything short of the repeal of DOMA could be of any value to LGBT people? That isn't an issue in which increments could be of any value.

Increments are also useless on the rights of workers.

Besides which, nobody has even SUGGESTED what half-a-loaf would be on those issues.

[boppers]

118. I don't think the way you do.

What are you going to do, get angry at me? Verbally insult me? Mock me? Create a clever riposte? Defeat my position with your massively better logic?

I haven't insulted victims, I've pointed out how abusers work.

Abusers want everything perfect, the way they want it, when they want it, how they want it. They are often perfectionists.

They accept little compromise.

When they don't get what they want, they attack others.

That's why they're abusive people.

They may be better, smarter, faster, stronger, whatever.

But they use it to gain position.

That's why they're abusive people.

[Ken Burch]

119. That's wicked twisted to argue that seeing the link between war and

the end of progressive politics is somehow abusive.

Or that standing up for your convictions in a message board is the equivalent of beating women and kids. That's just massively sick.

There's nothing I've said here that is even mildly harmful to President Obama, let alone abusive.

And I haven't abused YOU. I've just disagreed with you.

You're way out of line here.

[damonm]

103. Small problem with that...

"Nothing progressive was even attempted by LBJ after the escalation started", you say? The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the end of the line?

SO wrong.

Try these on for size:
Child Safety Act of 1966
Flammable Fabrics Act of 1967 (set standards for children's sleepwear)
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966
Highway Safety Act of 1966
Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 (required inspection of meat which must meet federal standards)
Truth-in-Lending Act of 1968
Wholesome Poultry Products Act of 1968
Land Sales Disclosure Act of 1968
Radiation Safety Act of 1968 (provided standards and recalls for defective electronic products)
National Trails System Act of 1968
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968
Aircraft Noise Abatement Act of 1968
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Bilingual Education Act of 1968
Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 - we'd have no PBS or NPR without it.


PLEASE be a bit more careful on your history before you go making broad claims - it severely undercuts your otherwise worthwhile argument.

All this said, I basically agree with you to a point. I can support escalation if and ONLY if there are crystal-clear objectives, timetables for meeting them, and an exit strategy. What I have seen from Obama so far suggests to me these criteria will be met - but I've been wrong before.

[MISSDem]

112. No more war.

End it now!

[TexasObserver]

120. I'd recommend this if the time for doing wasn't passed.

[jberryhill]

121. I guess we'll just ignore the LBJ presidency then, huh... /nt