NYT re: Afghan War: 'We Wonder Whether-At This Late Date-There Is A Chance Of Even Minimal Success'

[kpete]

NEW YORK TIMES LOSES FAITH IN AFGHAN WAR
'We Wonder Whether, At This Late Date, There Is A Chance Of Even Minimal Success'

The State of the War
Published: August 12, 2010

We believe that the United States has a powerful national interest in Afghanistan, in depriving Al Qaeda of a safe haven on either side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. This country would also do enormous damage to its moral and strategic standing if it now simply abandoned the Afghan people to the Taliban’s brutalities.


But, like many Americans, we are increasingly confused and anxious about the strategy in Afghanistan and wonder whether, at this late date, there is a chance of even minimal success.

The trove of military documents recently published in The Times showed, once again, why this is so hard: the weakness of the Afghan Army and the corruption of the Afghan government; the double game being played by Pakistan; the failure of the Bush administration, for seven years, to invest enough troops, money or attention in a war that it allowed to drag on until it has now become the longest in the nation’s history.

The WikiLeaks documents, however, end in late 2009 and don’t show us how the war is going now or whether President Obama’s decision in December to send 30,000 more troops (the last won’t be in place until the end of this month) has a chance of altering those realities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/opinion/13fri1.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/13/petraeus-hedges-on-july-2_n_681346.html

[maryf]

1. there must be profit loss somewhere...

for the NY Times...maybe the people ain't buying the news fit to print...

They don't write about the peace movement, at least this might be a start...

[kenny blankenship]

3. It could be a transitional move -a pivot- to allow them to bang the drum for war with Iran later on

You can't launch or cheer for wars all over the Islamic world simultaneously without drawing attention to the systematic nature of your bloodthirst. Take em one at a time. Give each one its own seemingly unique cause. Chew slowly and savor each bite.

[maryf]

9. oh you are good...

I rec this post!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Obama's looking for "Peace with honor" by sacrificiing troops in a lost war.

This "war" has always been about PR and showing that Bush was "decisive" and Obama "tough". Now, it's all about just saving face in a defeat much the way Nixon did. We'll "turn it over" to the ill-equipped, untrustworthy, ill-trained, Afghan Army and the Taliban and warlords will continue their civil war that we encouraged and fostered.

Meanwhile we'll get hit with the casualties and the bill while the politicians and generals try to find some way to cover their asses and blame "The Left" for their ambitions gone awry.

[Supersedeas]

4. The NewsHour still ends the days news with a list of the young soldiers killed in action

[metapunditedgy]

5. Is the war tax deductible? n/t

[damntexdem]

6. Sure, there's room for minimal success:

like getting most of the troops out alive.

Not too much more than that, though.

[mimitabby]

7. we couldn't learn by what happened to Russia..

[gratuitous]

8. And now you see why we all miss Judith Miller

She'd provide a goddam rationale, and you lot would like it!