Obama on Afghanistan: "this is not a war of choice, this is a war of necessity"

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Obama: Afghan war secures America
Tue, 18 Aug 2009 06:53:28 GMT

US President Barack Obama says there will be no quick or easy victory over the Taliban, noting that the war in Afghanistan is crucial in protecting Americans from terrorism.

Talking in a meeting of veterans in Arizona on Monday, Obama tried to step up the campaign in Afghanistan. “The insurgency in Afghanistan didn't just happen overnight and we won't defeat it overnight," he said.

US administration is sending 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan, therefore the success or failure of the mission of US forces in the war-torn country is crucial for its future plans in the region.

"This will not be quick, nor easy. But we must never forget this is not a war of choice, this is a war of necessity," he said. "If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans," he said.

...

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=103831§ionid=351020403

[hobbit709]

1. I guess Unocal still wants their pipeline.

[biermeister]

65. and the junkies still want their dope

[Echo In Light]

2. "protecting Americans from terrorism" = huge lie

[polichick]

4. Sad to hear it from this president. Looks like the MIC has him by the balls. nt

[polichick]

3. I disagree - imo it is a war of choice. Terrorists should be handled...

...like other crime groups & with coordination between law enforcement from many countries.

[ixion]

5. No, Mr. Obama, you are incorrect, and sadly

you are following in the footsteps of your predecessor.

Afghanistan is a fool's errand, as are ALL hostile occupations, and like those before us, this will not end well.

[VWolf]

9. Afghanistan: Where empires go to die n/t

[paulsby]

6. completely consistent

with his stance as a candidate. iow, not surprising.

[blindpig]

12. Consistency...

is the hobgoblin of small minds.

bu$h was pretty damned consistent....

[Odin2005]

14. Saying one thing and doing another is a sign of intelligence?

I hate that quote. :eyes:

[paulsby]

60. actually,

the only foolish consistency is all these people saying "oh noes obama supports the war in afghanistan" when he made it crystal clear he did LONG before he was elected.

you get what ya pay for.

they is the hobgoblins.

hth

[excess_3]

7. Same

health care
Iraq
Afghanistan
Columbia
drug policy

Change ...
Texas Rangers --> Chicago White Sox

[laststeamtrain]

8. K & R - I thought this was an interesting take on the VFW speech by a speech writer

Afghanistan Mission Creep Watch - The President Confirms It Version
Posted by Michael Cohen

President Barack Obama on March 27th, 2009:
"So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future."

President Barack Obama today at the VFW in Phoenix:
"And our new strategy has a clear mission and defined goals: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies."

So back on March 27th, our goal was to disrupt, defeat and dismantle Al Qaeda. Fast forward nearly 5 months and now we're going to throw AQ's extremist allies into the mix. I suppose on one level I should be pleased about this; the President has pretty much confirmed what I've been saying for about two months now - that a mission predicated on targeting Al Qaeda has expanded to included its "extremist allies." Oh and by the way, who exactly are these extremist allies, Mr. President. Just the Afghanistan Taliban or the Pakistan Taliban too?

I've been saying for a while now that the lack of transparency from the Obama Administration on US policy toward Afghanistan is disturbing. The shift from counter terrorism to full-fledged counter-insurgency was the first step. Last week we had Ambassador Richard Holbrooke unable to even define what success looks like. And now we have the President saying 'oh, by the way, remember how I said the mission was disrupting, dismantling and defeating Al Qaeda? Well we're going to expand that a bit.'

If the President believes that the US needs to ramp up the mission in Afghanistan to include defeating, dismantling and disrupting the Taliban and other extremist allies of Al Qaeda that's fine, but he needs to explain it to the American people. But to sneak a fairly significant and explicit expansion of that mission into a speech in the middle of August at the VFW . . . well quite frankly, that's not change I can believe in...
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2009/08/afghanistan-mission-creep-watch-the-president-confirms-it-version.html

[truedelphi]

55. Obana's appointing Holbrooke made my heart sink.

George Bush the Elder had Holbrooke go over to Milosevic's Yugoslavia and tell him that the nation could do whatever it needed to in terms of protecting their autonomy from the Albanians. (H was accompanied by Armitage.)

Pretty much set them up for the coming decade of sanctions and then a bombing war that we carried out against a country doing what we suggested that they do!

[Balbus]

10. So, in other words, "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here..."

Good one, O.

[tekisui]

11. knr!~

He is so wrong on this.

[SIMPLYB1980]

13. He is correct on this.

Flame away.

[Odin2005]

15. No flames from me.

The Naive Pacifists are just angry that they just figuring out that opposition to the Iraq war does not mean Americans are against military intervention in general.

[ixion]

25. You think we can 'win' in Afghanistan, and you're calling ME 'naive'?

that's rich. :rofl:

[PVnRT]

32. "Naive Pacifists"

Who is naive, the pacifists or the people who think we can win against a non-state enemy that does not restrict itself to geographic boundaries in a country that India, Britain and Russia have all been driven out of at some point?

[Political Heretic]

17. No flames, however I disagree that he is correct on this, and I have a lot of supporting evidence

...you can see my reasoning below in a post of mine below this one.

[glitch]

30. Military Industrial is the only thriving sector in the economy so perhaps in that respect yes.

Otherwise, no.

[TheWatcher]

58. Then ENLIST and go fight in it.

Stand up for what you believe in.

We'll wait here for your heroic tales. :eyes:

[TankLV]

61. Obama's WRONG on this one TOO! FUCK OBAMA - he sounds JUST LIKE BUSH!!!

YES - I SAID IT!!!

it's fucking TRUE!!!

I'm DONE with this idiot...

[Political Heretic]

16. Obama is either tragically misguided or lying. Honestly, I believe the former in this case.

I don't yet think he's just consciously lying about this stuff. Right now I think he's just tragically misguided in the entire frame of the "war on terror" that he's basically bought into (even though he's more or less retired the specific phrase.

He assumes, probably based on lots of advice and pressure from the Pentagon and hawkish people in Washington, that the solution to the potential threat posted by the "Taliban insurgency" will be lessened or eliminated by escalated military action.

This is incredibly short-sighted. All we've done in Iraq after all these years is kill hundreds of thousands of people and gain the smallest measure of short term calm. Within a decade, there will be more terrorists than ever, fueled in large part by the memory of an aggressive America illegally invading the middle east and calling it a "crusade." We've already seen NIEs and government reports on global terrorism showing the world being a much less safe place now than it was before we ever invaded - with recruitment way up, terrorist acts way up, etc.

Attempting to transform Afghanistan and eliminate the "taliban" (I keep putting that in quotes, because the media narrative is of this single, organized group called the taliban, when in reality is a loosely bound web of various insurgents) will go the same way. After so many years and so much death, we'll acheive a short term measure of greater stability - which will only reset the cycle and pave the way for the breeding of the next generation of America loathing terrorists.

Sooner or later, humanity is going to have to come to grips with the reality that violence begets violence. Even if there are times where violence is the only way (namely, in times of defense) it still a reality that violence begets more violence and continues the cycle...

People who oppose our ridiculous wars in the middle east are not suggesting that we ignore the middle east. We all agree that there are serious issues in the middle east and even serious threats to global security. But we are handling them wrong. Wrong. We're making things worse for the next generation.

[HamdenRice]

20. This may be cynical, but I think the surge in Afghanistan is mainly political cover to leave Iraq

I don't think from what I've read of the plans, that they are particularly serious about staying in Afghanistan, transforming it in any way or wiping out the Taliban. I think it has to do with the perpetual accusation that Democrats are weak on defense and security.

Obama ran significantly on ending the war in Iraq. It would have been political suicide to run on ending the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, so he created a narrative about the right war and the wrong war. The surge in Afghanistan is sop to the securocrats as cover to get out of Iraq.

The surge in Afghanistan is pretty clearly designed to allow for an election, and for the US to declare victory and begin to disengage there as well.

[Political Heretic]

21. That's not cynical - that's criminal.

Any president sanctioning an escalation of slaughter, and sending U.S. soldiers into danger with the certainty that an increased number will be killed for political cover should be impeached and if possible, prosecuted.

So we might want to try to come up with some other excuse of Obama than the one you're suggesting.

[HamdenRice]

22. Uh, no, it's not

War always has political ends. It's the first thing you learn in international relations. The political ends are not domestic electoral political ends, but the political end of stabilizing both countries sufficiently to withdraw and end the wars.

Only on DU can a political-military strategy to end war be considered a war crime.

:silly: :crazy: :silly:

[Political Heretic]

28. Um, yes. It is. You don't kill soldiers to boost your own poll numbers.

Political ends does not equal Political cover. The two are very different.

What you described was precisely about domestic electoral politics - putting U.S. soldiers in harms way to help yourself politically is disgusting. Putting U.S. soldiers in harms way because you believe the political ends are important enough that it must be done is a different thing altogether.

Perhaps I read something wrong.... you did suggest that perhaps escalating the Afghanistan war was for the purposes of providing "political cover" for withdraw from Iraq, because by your estimation the American people wouldn't accept the end to both wars? Because I was pretty sure what you said. And any president doing that, ought to be impeached as a disgrace. You don't kill soldiers to boost your own poll numbers.

That's what I was saying.

[HamdenRice]

34. I think you are misunderstanding. The election I'm talking about is the one in Afghanistan...

not "poll numbers" in the American electorate. An election in Afghanistan is a substantive political goal toward stabilizing Afghanistan.

When Obama created the "narrative" he was not president; he was candidate. He had no power to "kill soldiers to boost" poll numbers. He was creating a policy that the American public would subscribe to in order to end the wars, with a focus on ending the war in Iraq first, because it was the least legitimate, and then surging in Afghanistan and leaving there also.

If he had campaigned on ending both wars immediately regardless of consequences in Iraq and Afghanistan, he would have lost. Dennis Kucinich has campaigned on that platform and lost every time. McCain would be president and we'd have three wars, including Iran.

Americans wanted both countries stabilized enough to end the wars. Elections in both countries evidence a stabilized situation. He is delivering exactly what he promised and what the American public voted for.

[Political Heretic]

36. You're right! I did misunderstand. I'm very sorry! So early for me here....

I was up at 3:30am to take my parents to the airport.... clearly it hampered my reading ability. Sorry.

[HamdenRice]

44. It's such a pleasant surprise on DU when misunderstandings can be cleared up!

:hi:

[Orwellian_Ghost]

37. So you're supporting fake elections run by the US and NATO?

"Stability" is code for control of the energy routes for the profit machine. There's your stability. Do you believe in all of these lies that the corporate media throws your way? Seems so.

"Elections in both countries evidence a stabilized situation."

Geez Hammy it seems you are even channeling the neo-conservatives these days. Should I drag up a bucket full of quotes from the various war hawks that say exactly what you just said?

FAKE ELECTIONS WON’T BRING PEACE TO AFGHANISTAN
August 17, 2009

This week’s presidential election in Afghanistan will be an elaborate piece of political theater designed to show increasingly uneasy Western voters that progress is being made in the war-torn nation after seven years of US-led occupation.

Most Afghans already believe they know who will win the vote: the candidate chosen by the United States and its NATO allies.

Voting will mostly be held in urban areas, under the guns of US and NATO troops. The countryside, ruled by Taliban, who are often local farmers moonlighting as fighters, is too dangerous for this electoral charade. Over half of Afghanistan is under Taliban influence by day, 75% at night.

The entire election and vote-counting election commission are financed and run by the US. So are leading candidates. Ten thousand Afghan mercenaries hired by the US will police the polls and intimidate voters. US-financed Afghan media are busy promoting Washington’s candidates.

...

http://ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/fake-elections-wont-bring-peace-to-afghanistan_1.aspx

[HamdenRice]

40. Your posts are laughably simple-minded. It's like arguing with a three year old over a toy.

Unlike you, I have no grandiose sense of the importance of my opinion in this matter, as you do, so I would never say, "I support" the elections.

The elections are part of a process of stabilization. They are an indicia of stabilization, and if they can pull them off, it means that they will have been able to do so despite the efforts of elements ot the Taliban to derail them.

Elections are not always intended to serve the same pedestrian electoral purposes of American elections in unstable, post-conflict countries. For example, when I observed the constitutional negotiations and elections in South Africa, from Johannesburg, at CODESA and the Multi-Party Negotiating Forum, between 1993 and 1994, including from within MPNF as a result of press credentials Multi-Party Negotiating Forum, kindly given to me by the ANC, many of the negotiators and analysts took the time to explain to me how the elections were part of a much bigger process of negotiating everything about how to stabilize the country -- from how monetary policy would be conducted by the South African Reserve Bank, to pensions for Afrikaner bureaucrats, to incorporation of Umkhonto we Sizwe cadres into the South African Defense Force, to land reform, to arrangements for the Zulu monarch to control a land trust in KwaZulu Natal, to special provisions for Afrikaner Nationalists to have a "Boerestaat," to language parity, to consociational vetoes at the provincial level -- and many, many other matters.

The point of the elections was to ratify a much larger and not entirely formally democratic political deal, and to create a deadline for the deal-making. Despite escalating political violence, attempted coups, assassinations, an invasion of the multi-party talks by neo-nazis with a tank blasting through the convention center walls, a mutiny in Bophutatswana and an invasion by an entire column of neo-Nazi Afrikaner nationalists, the election in South Africa "worked."

Despite its messiness, South Africa's "elections" have become a model for how to stabilize post conflict situations in the third world. My first hand observations of the talks, while reading the evolving text of the constitution, and the thousands of pages of technical reports as they were being written has shaped my views on post conflict elections and stabilization. In other words, my views of stabilization are based on first hand observation of the process in Africa.

If you think that this is not a legitimate role for elections to play in attempting to create a post-conflict situation, then please explain using your first hand observations from post conflict stabilization efforts and maybe we can compare field notes.

If you don't have first hand experience, or have not read extensively about such processes, you will forgive me if I would prefer not to compare my observations based on first hand experience, to an uninformed ideological rant of yours based on wing-nut internet conspiracy sources.

If you read newspapers other than professional liars like WSWS, you would know that a similarly complex series of negotiations is taking place in Afghanistan, that may, if they can pull it off, bring into limited consensus the far ends of the political spectrum in Afghanistan, from elements of the Taliban to certain warlords.

[EFerrari]

47. All stabilizations are not equal. Fake elections do no promote

long term stability. They simply defer open conflict.

[HamdenRice]

48. True. It didn't work in Cambodia.

But it's hard to tell while it's happening. Karzai is bad, but he's not Hun Sen, though. All news sources are reporting that the government is trying to make a deal with elements of the Taliban, which is a good sign.

I wouldn't call them "fake elections". I would call them broad messy referendums that legitimate (or fail to legitimate) broad political negotiations. These have worked in Mozambique, but not in Angola. They worked in Zimbabwe for nearly 20 years before breaking down.

That's the point I'm trying to get across. These elections are not, nor are they intended to be, like electing your local school board.

Most of the international community, and people who have worked in or covered such "elections" in stabilization efforts understand what these events are.

[EFerrari]

49. I'll call them fake elections.

:)

They're meant to calm the populace and, insofar as that happens, fine. Insofar as they simply continue the cause of the conflict, the can is just kicked down the road.

I don't see how having Dostum back in the picture is going to calm anyone down and Karzai went out his way to recruit him. The people aren't stupid. They know he is a butcher and Karzai is sending out the signal that he is untouchable by bringing Dostum back in.

Bringing Dostum in is also Karzai flipping off Pakistan and courting India who in the past has used the Northern Alliance to keep Pakistan busy in Afghanistan and away from her border. Afghanistan is, right now, the Mother of All Proxy Wars.

[HamdenRice]

50. Dostum is untouchable

and it has nothing to do with what has happened since the invasion. I wrote about it here, translating from a French news report (subsequently the underlying documents were verified by the French government) and it's bizarre, unbelievable, and shocking. There are reasons beyond Karzai that Dostum is untouchable. He knows A LOT about 9/11 and what the Americans knew about 9/11 and can get away with anything:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x678886

Dès janvier 2001, la direction d'Al-Qaida se montre néanmoins transparente aux yeux – et aux oreilles – des espions français. Les rédacteurs détaillent même les désaccords entre terroristes sur les modalités pratiques du détournement envisagé. Jamais ils ne doutent de leur intention. Provisoirement, les djihadistes privilégient la capture d'un avion entre Francfort et les Etats-Unis. Ils établissent une liste de sept compagnies possibles. Deux seront finalement choisies par les pirates du 11-Septembre : American Airlines et United Airlines (voir fac-similé). Dans son introduction, l'auteur de la note annonce : "Selon les services ouzbeks de renseignement, le projet d'un détournement d'avion semble avoir été discuté en début d'année 2000 lors d'une réunion à Kaboul entre des représentants de l'organisation d'Oussama Ben Laden…"

By January 2001, Al-Qaida’s direction, however, has become transparent to the eyes - and the ears - of French spies. The writers <of the French intelligence reports> even detail the operational disagreements between terrorists about how they envision the hijackings. They <the French intelligence report writers> never doubt the <terrorists’> intentions. For a while, the jihadists focus on hijacking a plane <en route> between Frankfurt and the United States. They draw up a list of seven possible airline companies. The pirates of 9/11 <ie hijackers> finally chose two: American Airlines and United Airlines (see facsimiled). In his introduction, the author of the note announces: “According to the Uzbek <intelligence> service’s information, the hijacking project seems to have been be discussed at the beginning of 2000 at a meeting in Kabul between representatives of Usama Bin Laden’s organization…”

<cut>

Alain Chouet a gardé en mémoire cet épisode. Il a dirigé jusqu'en octobre 2002 le Service de renseignement de sécurité, la subdivision de la DGSE chargée de suivre les mouvements terroristes. Selon lui, la crédibilité du canal ouzbek trouve son origine dans les alliances passées par le général Rachid Dostom, l'un des principaux chefs de guerre afghans, d'ethnie ouzbek lui aussi, et qui combat alors les talibans. Pour plaire à ses protecteurs des services de sécurité de l'Ouzbékistan voisin, Dostom a infiltré certains de ses hommes au sein du MIO, jusque dans les structures de commandement des camps d'Al-Qaida. C'est ainsi qu'il renseigne ses amis de Tachkent, en sachant que ses informations cheminent ensuite vers Washington, Londres ou Paris.

Alain Chouet recalls this episode. Until October 2002, he was the director the Security Information Service, the subdivision of the DGSE charged with tracking terrorists' movements. According to him <ie Chouet, head of French counter-terrorism>, the credibility of the Uzbek channel originated in the past alliances of General Rachid Dostom, one of the principal Afghan warlords, who is also an ethnic Uzbek, and who was then fighting the Taliban. In order to please his protectors in the Uzbek security <ie intelligence?> service, he infiltrated some of his men in the heart of the MIO <ie the Uzbek jihadist organization being trained at Al Qaeda camps> up to the very command structure of the al Qaeda camps. Thus, he informed his friends in Tachkent <ie, the capital or government of Uzbekistan> with the knowledge that his information would proceed onwards to Washington, London or Paris.

[EFerrari]

51. Yes, that's Dostum. I agree. And so bringing him into this election

-- I'm sure you agree -- has little to do with fighting terrorism, "stabilizing" Afghanistan or calming the people.

It's usually exactly at this point that I get a cognitive dissonance headache, trying to marry White House public statements and what we know about the situation.

[HamdenRice]

54. I think I diverge from some of DU's self-proclaimed radicals at this juncture

They seem to think that Obama is just following Bush's policy of pursuing Afghanistan for control of oil. I read Obama's statements as having abandoned those ambitions.

I also think of presidential politics in an idiosyncratic way: I think the presidency is open to ad hoc coalitions of interest groups, constituencies and, yes, fractions of capitalist classes.

Bush was self-evidently a creature of the oil industry and arms industry.

Obama is unusual. I think there was a genuine populist element based on his use of the internet. Other parts of the coalition were youth, minorities, students, labor. But there was also a capitalist faction of clean capitalism that was sick of Bush fucking up the world -- hollywood, finance, software, green energy, etc.-- the Clinton Gore backers.

I don't see oil as any part whatsoever in the Obama coaltion. I don't see Obama as committed at all to Iraq or Afghanistan. Oil did not support him, nor did arms.

But the security establishment cannot just be fucked with. Consider Kennedy and Carter (October Surprise).

Dostum has the ability to bring down the security establishment in the US. It's not oil, it's where the bodies are buried. They will try to extract us from Afghanistan without damage, but I think Holder is willing to let this stuff drip, drip, drip out as leverage.

[wuvuj]

24. US police and military...

...gain from the "war on terror"? More power...more money? Corps gain power and profits. We all lose civil rights and safety.

"Sooner or later, humanity is going to have to come to grips with the reality that violence begets violence. Even if there are times where violence is the only way (namely, in times of defense) it still a reality that violence begets more violence and continues the cycle..."

[lewismo]

18. re:

When Obama says "left unchecked(...)" I think that he is planning to stay in Afghanistan for a long time, and has no plans moving out anytime soon. The weapons industry will be happy about this, war is profitable, I don't think sending in more troops will make things easier, only make the taliban more aggressive, the normal citizens of afghanistan probably would also want the US troops to leave as fast as possible. But it is true that we can just leave the place like that, if we were to pull out now nothing would change.

[Orsino]

19. No, it's still a war of choice.

Sustaining it has become something of a political necessity for a president and Congress who lack the courage to end it.

[blindpig]

42. 'Political Necessity'??

So party politics trumps good policy and humanity?

That's entirely fucked up and calls into question the worth of our entire political system.

[Orsino]

45. Agreed.

It's entirely fucked up. While we're arguing over fake plans to kill grandma at home, we're still killing for real overseas. And for little else than inertia. :mad:

[wuvuj]

23. Fits in with his...

...ideas on torture prosecution....just ignore the past?

There should be no discussion of US policies leading up to 9/11? The US is a lot like Israel? Steal people's land (resources) and then wonder why they are upset?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. It's war of CYA political necessity to show that he's "tough on terror".

And, to not have to acknowledge (another) lost war.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

27. I agree. For the MIC.

Absolutely essential to them.

[glitch]

31. You beat me. :)- nt

[L0oniX]

29. Wrong!

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[piratefish08]

35. "noting that the war in Afghanistan is crucial in protecting Americans from terrorism."

sounds familiar - where have we heard that before?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. Korea, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Panama, Iraq...to name a few.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[GeorgeGist]

38. Childish nonsense.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

39. Which part?

War for resources is childish nonsense? I'd say it's deadly serious.

Please explain.

[bullwinkle428]

43. Rory Stewart was interviewed on NPR's "On Point" show this morning. He

talked about a different approach to Afghanistan - a middle ground between complete abandonment and what's actually happening now, which is the "garrisoning" of the country with 100,000 troops at present and an additional 30,000 on the way.

"The former British diplomat/author turned NGO director reiterates many of the points that he has made over the last year or so, some of which are widely accepted and some of which are blatantly false. The main points of his vision for saving Afghanistan:


-Reduced military presence with a focus on counterterrorism, not counterinsurgency.
-Rely on Special Forces and intelligence operatives, not conventional troops.
-Less aid to Afghanistan, but with “a greater focus on what we know how to do.”
-Target aid to the stable provinces rather than to those unstable ones."


Here is some background info on Rory Stewart, who identifies himself as a Conservative/Tory in Great Britain, and actually WALKED ACROSS AFGHANISTAN in 2002, as part of a journey across Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, India and Nepal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_Stewart

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/books/review/11cover_bissel.html

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1823753,00.html

[EFerrari]

46. And the empire staggers on. Look what our tax dollars are paying for.

"General" Dostum is campaigning for Karzai! Isn't that great? He's the guy that, with our Special Forces, orchestrated the suffocation deaths of thousands of Taliban fighters and then dumped their bodies into mass graves. Quite the public servant!

Eight Years After Orchestrating Massacre at Dasht-e-Leili, Afghan Warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum Returns to Afghanistan to Campaign for Karzai

One of Afghanistan’s most feared warlords has returned to Afghanistan just days before its presidential election. General Abdul Rashid Dostum is one of several warlords who have allied with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who is seeking a new term. Karzai is hoping Dostum’s return will help attract ethnic Uzbek voters. Dostum’s return to prominence in Afghanistan comes despite his role overseeing a 2001 massacre at Dasht-e-Leili that left at least 2,000 Taliban POWs dead. He’s also had extensive ties with the US and was formerly on the CIA payroll. We speak with international human rights lawyer, Andrew McEntee.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/18/eight_years_after_orchestrating_massacre_at

Audio, video, transcript at link

[MISSDem]

52. No more war.

I will not vote for him again if he does not end the wars.

[Mari333]

53. hes going to lose next time.

BreakingNewsA majority of Americans now believe the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting for, according to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4022934

[TheWatcher]

59. And we will trade one Abusive Spouse for one that is more Abusive.

But there is some upside.

The Stockholm Syndrome that has become DU will regain their perception back, for the most part, since the other Football Team will have the ball.

And then comes the continued destruction of the country until we find another Abusive Spouse from our Football Team that makes us feel good.

Then it's back to Stockholm.

The American Asylum.....

BELIEVE IT!

[MadHound]

56. One question.

What will "victory" in Afghanistan look like and how will we have known that we've won?

[scarletwoman]

57. I listened to excerpts of Obama's speech to the VFW yesterday on NPR.

It made me fucking sick. It was bad enough hearing that kind of horseshit from G.W.Bush, it's absolutely cosmic-level-despair-inducing to hear it from Obama.

There's NO fucking hope. There's NO fucking change. At this point, the only thing that would trigger a bit of optimism in my soul is a major asteroid strike.

sw

[galileoreloaded]

62. All wars are resource driven......drill it down..........n/t

[JCMach1]

63. So, was that the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or the insurgency that we are 'fighting' against?

Besides I thought it was an OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATION anyway...

We shouldn't stay another minute in Afghanistan.

[Canuckistanian]

64. Necessary for... what?

What has been accomplished in Afghanistan?

Are the Taliban being eradicated? Are the warlords out of power? Is there a valid national government yet?

Will 30,000 troops accomplish these goals?