This Time, Let's Call Out the Neocons Before They Screw Us Over

[Rohirrim]

Two Wrongs Make Another Fiasco

By FRANK RICH
Published: October 10, 2009

THOSE of us who love F. Scott Fitzgerald must acknowledge that he did get one big thing wrong. There are second acts in American lives. (Just ask Marion Barry, or William Shatner.) The real question is whether everyone deserves a second act. Perhaps the most surreal aspect of our great Afghanistan debate is the Beltway credence given to the ravings of the unrepentant blunderers who dug us into this hole in the first place.

Let’s be clear: Those who demanded that America divert its troops and treasure from Afghanistan to Iraq in 2002 and 2003 — when there was no Qaeda presence in Iraq — bear responsibility for the chaos in Afghanistan that ensued. Now they have the nerve to imperiously and tardily demand that America increase its 68,000-strong presence in Afghanistan to clean up their mess — even though the number of Qaeda insurgents there has dwindled to fewer than 100, according to the president’s national security adviser, Gen. James Jones.

But why let facts get in the way? Just as these hawks insisted that Iraq was “the central front in the war on terror” when the central front was Afghanistan, so they insist that Afghanistan is the central front now that it has migrated to Pakistan. When the day comes for them to anoint Pakistan as the central front, it will be proof positive that Al Qaeda has consolidated its hold on Somalia and Yemen.

To appreciate this crowd’s spotless record of failure, consider its noisiest standard-bearer, John McCain. He made every wrong judgment call that could be made after 9/11. It’s not just that he echoed the Bush administration’s constant innuendos that Iraq collaborated with Al Qaeda’s attack on America. Or that he hyped the faulty W.M.D. evidence to the hysterical extreme of fingering Iraq for the anthrax attacks in Washington. Or that he promised we would win the Iraq war “easily.” Or that he predicted that the Sunnis and the Shiites would “probably get along” in post-Saddam Iraq because there was “not a history of clashes” between them.

What’s more mortifying still is that McCain was just as wrong about Afghanistan and Pakistan. He routinely minimized or dismissed the growing threats in both countries over the past six years, lest they draw American resources away from his pet crusade in Iraq.

Two years after 9/11 he was claiming that we could “in the long term” somehow “muddle through” in Afghanistan. (He now has the chutzpah to accuse President Obama of wanting to “muddle through” there.) Even after the insurgency accelerated in Afghanistan in 2005, McCain was still bragging about the “remarkable success” of that prematurely abandoned war. In 2007, some 15 months after the Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf signed a phony “truce” ceding territory on the Afghanistan border to terrorists, McCain gave Musharraf a thumb’s up. As a presidential candidate in the summer of 2008, McCain cared so little about Afghanistan it didn’t even merit a mention among the national security planks on his campaign Web site.

He takes no responsibility for any of this. Asked by Katie Couric last week about our failures in Afghanistan, McCain spoke as if he were an innocent bystander: “I think the reason why we didn’t do a better job on Afghanistan is our attention — either rightly or wrongly — was on Iraq.” As Tonto says to the Lone Ranger, “What do you mean ‘we,’ white man?”

Along with his tribunes in Congress and the punditocracy, Wrong-Way McCain still presumes to give America its marching orders. With his Senate brethren in the Three Amigos, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, he took to The Wall Street Journal’s op-ed page to assert that “we have no choice” but to go all-in on Afghanistan — rightly or wrongly, presumably — just as we had in Iraq. Why? “The U.S. walked away from Afghanistan once before, following the Soviet collapse,” they wrote. “The result was 9/11. We must not make that mistake again.”

This shameless argument assumes — perhaps correctly — that no one in this country remembers anything. So let me provide a reminder: We already did make that mistake again when we walked away from Afghanistan to invade Iraq in 2003 — and we did so at the Three Amigos’ urging. Then, too, they promoted their strategy as a way of preventing another 9/11 — even though no one culpable for 9/11 was in Iraq. Now we’re being asked to pay for their mistake by squandering stretched American resources in yet another country where Al Qaeda has largely vanished.

To make the case, the Amigos and their fellow travelers conflate the Taliban with Al Qaeda much as they long conflated Saddam’s regime with Al Qaeda. But as Rajiv Chandrasekaran of The Washington Post reported on Thursday, American intelligence officials now say that “there are few, if any, links between Taliban commanders in Afghanistan today and senior Al Qaeda members” — a far cry from the tight Taliban-bin Laden alliance of 2001.

The rhetorical sleights of hand in the hawks’ arguments don’t end there. If you listen carefully to McCain and his neocon echo chamber, you’ll notice certain tics. President Obama better make his decision by tomorrow, or Armageddon (if not mushroom clouds) will arrive. We must “win” in Afghanistan — but victory is left vaguely defined. That’s because we will never build a functioning state in a country where there has never been one. Nor can we score a victory against the world’s dispersed, stateless terrorists by getting bogged down in a hellish landscape that contains few of them.

Most tellingly, perhaps, those clamoring for an escalation in Afghanistan avoid mentioning the name of the country’s president, Hamid Karzai, or the fraud-filled August election that conclusively delegitimized his government. To do so would require explaining why America should place its troops in alliance with a corrupt partner knee-deep in the narcotics trade. As long as Karzai and the election are airbrushed out of history, it can be disingenuously argued that nothing has changed on the ground since Obama’s inauguration and that he has no right to revise his earlier judgment that Afghanistan is a “war of necessity.”

Those demanding more combat troops for Afghanistan also avoid defining the real costs. The Congressional Research Service estimates that the war was running $2.6 billion a month in Pentagon expenses alone even before Obama added 20,000 troops this year. Surely fiscal conservatives like McCain and Graham who rant about deficits being “generational theft” have an obligation to explain what the added bill will be on an Afghanistan escalation and where the additional money will come from. But that would require them to use the dread words “sacrifice” and “higher taxes” when they want us to believe that this war, like Iraq, would be cost-free.

The real troop numbers are similarly elusive. Pre-emptively railing against the prospect of “half measures” by Obama, Lieberman asked MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell rhetorically last week whether it would be “real counterinsurgency” or “counterinsurgency light.” But the measure Lieberman endorses — Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s reported recommendation of 40,000 additional troops — is itself counterinsurgency light. In his definitive recent field manual on the subject, Gen. David Petraeus stipulates that real counterinsurgency requires 20 to 25 troops for each thousand residents. That comes out, conservatively, to 640,000 troops for Afghanistan (population, 32 million). Some 535,000 American troops couldn’t achieve a successful counterinsurgency in South Vietnam, which had half Afghanistan’s population and just over a quarter of its land area.

Lieberman suggested to Mitchell that we could train an enhanced, centralized Afghan army to fill any gaps. In how many decades? The existing Afghan “army” is small, illiterate, impoverished and as factionalized as the government. For his part, McCain likes to justify McChrystal’s number of 40,000 by imbuing it with the supposedly magical powers of the “surge” in Iraq. But it’s rewriting history to say that the “surge” brought “victory” to Iraq. What it did was stanch the catastrophic bleeding in an unnecessary war McCain had helped gin up. Lest anyone forget, we still don’t know who has “won” in Iraq.

Afghanistan is not Iraq. It is poorer, even larger and more populous, more fragmented and less historically susceptible to foreign intervention. Even if the countries were interchangeable, the wars are not. No one-size surge fits all. President Bush sent the additional troops to Iraq only after Sunni leaders in Anbar Province soured on Al Qaeda and reached out for American support. There is no equivalent “Anbar Awakening” in Afghanistan. Most Afghans “don’t feel threatened by the Taliban in their daily lives” and “aren’t asking for American protection,” reported Richard Engel of NBC News last week. After eight years of war, many see Americans as occupiers.

Americans, meanwhile, want to see the fine print after eight years of fiasco with little accounting. While McCain and company remain frozen where they were in 2001, many of their fellow citizens have learned from the Iraq tragedy. Polls persistently find that the country is skeptical about what should and can be accomplished in Afghanistan. They voted for Obama not least because they wanted a new post-9/11 vision of national security, and they will not again be so easily bullied by the blustering hawks’ doomsday scenarios. That gives our deliberating president both the time and the political space to get this long war’s second act right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11rich.html?_r=1

[Meck77]

We must defend the Holy Land until every America is dead. Right?

[Rohirrim]

We must defend the Holy Land until every America is dead. Right?

Sometimes I wonder. I have no doubt that Lieberman gets his marching orders from Tel Aviv.

[Rohirrim]

To appreciate this crowd’s spotless record of failure, consider its noisiest standard-bearer, John McCain. He made every wrong judgment call that could be made after 9/11. It’s not just that he echoed the Bush administration’s constant innuendos that Iraq collaborated with Al Qaeda’s attack on America. Or that he hyped the faulty W.M.D. evidence to the hysterical extreme of fingering Iraq for the anthrax attacks in Washington. Or that he promised we would win the Iraq war “easily.” Or that he predicted that the Sunnis and the Shiites would “probably get along” in post-Saddam Iraq because there was “not a history of clashes” between them.

To read that and then to read McCain's warmongering today is enough to make me sick:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/11/mccain.afghanistan/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

The most disgusting thing about this is that the media doesn't call him out on any of it. Our "Fourth Estate" has become a joke.

[Bronx33]

In his definitive recent field manual on the subject, Gen. David Petraeus stipulates that real counterinsurgency requires 20 to 25 troops for each thousand residents. That comes out, conservatively, to 640,000 troops for Afghanistan (population, 32 million). Some 535,000 American troops couldn’t achieve a successful counterinsurgency in South Vietnam, which had half Afghanistan’s population and just over a quarter of its land area.

It's funny they never ever never factor in goverment envolvment in military operations being the reason for failure remember nixon breaking Lyndon Johnson promise? drawing a line inwhich we couldn't chase the VC past? victory was right there and it was takin away via politics. The rules for engagment alone are handcuffing our boys in afganistan and is obama stalling on adding troops part of a PR stunt. If Obama has in mind a Nixon-style "decent interval" where we are going to let troops be killed in an effort not to win a war but to simply contrive a politically-palatable "defeat with honor," then get them out of there.

[cutthemdown]

I could go along with either sending a ton more to destroy the Taliban. But if thats not the plan then I say bring everyone of them home and call it quits.

I believe in either kicking ass or leaving. Bush made a huge huge mistake not finishing it. he made a huge mistake counting on NATO to really help much. On the UK and some smaller NATO countries really tried. The French, The Germans, etc etc really aren't into it.

[cutthemdown]

I know Gaff and others have tons of conspirecey theories so I have one question.

If America stages everything why not do a huge fake attack on one of our allies and blame it on who we want them to attack? Seems like if we would ram planes into buildings we would also make sure countries like Germany sufficiently angry.

[Rohirrim]

Now I'm just sitting back and watching the whole machine (politics, press, internet, media) slowly turning the gears to coax the American people into buying the idea that we have no option than to spend a few decades in some dirt hole in middle Asia. All the same old lies, the same fear mongering, the same bs. There's only one reason to stay in Afghanistan. The military/industrial complex needs constant war. That's what it feeds on. Why would a general ever say we don't need more war? So he can spend the next ten years of his career at some desk in the Pentagon? Of course not. War must be constant. We need the jobs. And the worse the economy gets, the bigger the war we'll need.

[rastaman]

It's funny they never ever never factor in goverment envolvment in military operations being the reason for failure remember nixon breaking Lyndon Johnson promise? drawing a line inwhich we couldn't chase the VC past? victory was right there and it was takin away via politics. The rules for engagment alone are handcuffing our boys in afganistan and is obama stalling on adding troops part of a PR stunt. If Obama has in mind a Nixon-style "decent interval" where we are going to let troops be killed in an effort not to win a war but to simply contrive a politically-palatable "defeat with honor," then get them out of there.

If Obama is smart he will develop a strategy to hunt down and defeat and marginalize Alquieda! And by the way, you don't need an additional 40,000 troops to defeat Alqueda!

[rastaman]

Now I'm just sitting back and watching the whole machine (politics, press, internet, media) slowly turning the gears to coax the American people into buying the idea that we have no option than to spend a few decades in some dirt hole in middle Asia. All the same old lies, the same fear mongering, the same bs. There's only one reason to stay in Afghanistan. The military/industrial complex needs constant war. That's what it feeds on. Why would a general ever say we don't need more war? So he can spend the next ten years of his career at some desk in the Pentagon? Of course not. War must be constant. We need the jobs. And the worse the economy gets, the bigger the war we'll need.

Rep! And spoken truth to power.

[Garcia Bronco]

Either commit and win or get out. Stop using our troops as a political football.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Now I'm just sitting back and watching the whole machine (politics, press, internet, media) slowly turning the gears to coax the American people into buying the idea that we have no option than to spend a few decades in some dirt hole in middle Asia. All the same old lies, the same fear mongering, the same bs. There's only one reason to stay in Afghanistan. The military/industrial complex needs constant war. That's what it feeds on. Why would a general ever say we don't need more war? So he can spend the next ten years of his career at some desk in the Pentagon? Of course not. War must be constant. We need the jobs. And the worse the economy gets, the bigger the war we'll need.

So it's safe to say that you discount the idea that, upon the US leaving a nation already teetering on civil war, that the Taliban and AQ will now have a staging area to carry out foreign and domestic terror?

Biden and others assert that AQ is in Pakistan, and that may be true. But are they in a position logistically, strategically, and materially to inflict damage on us from there? I don't think so, though I don't underestimate their zeal and capabilities. If the US pulls out of Afghanistan, we then risk losing TWO nations--Afghanistan and Pakistan--to the Taliban. As much as Obama wants to separate AQ and the Taliban as enemies there, history shows this cannot be done with any resulting success. A resurgent Taliban combined with no US presence equals the fall of Pakistan and the new problem of nukes thrown into the equation.

Finally, from a humanitarian standpoint, the US flight will result in major human rights violations that cannot be tolerated. One only need look back at footage of women being executed in stadiums for the most minor of offenses, and footage of women being disfigured (acid in their face, etc.) to know that Taliban control means crimes against humanity. So there IS more than one reason to stay, IMO.

As for McChrystal, didn't Obama himself appoint him to run the Af-Pak theater? A general's job is to carry out military operations, and to do this one properly, he needs more troops. He's not privy--nor should he be--to political goals and/or esoteric interests in the region. He's' there to fight and to win, plain and simple. Sorry, but it isn't only neo-cons (whatever the hell that is) that are pushing to stay and win. Obama himself pushed it for 2 years while criticizing Bush at every turn. Dems pushed it as the necessary war. Now we are seeing that they said this for political reasons alone, not because they actually care about the people on the ground. Now, many Dems are still pushing it, even as the party splinters on the issue with others advocating flight and/or altering the plan entirely.

[Rohirrim]

So it's safe to say that you discount the idea that, upon the US leaving a nation already teetering on civil war, that the Taliban and AQ will now have a staging area to carry out foreign and domestic terror?

Biden and others assert that AQ is in Pakistan, and that may be true. But are they in a position logistically, strategically, and materially to inflict damage on us from there? I don't think so, though I don't underestimate their zeal and capabilities. If the US pulls out of Afghanistan, we then risk losing TWO nations--Afghanistan and Pakistan--to the Taliban. As much as Obama wants to separate AQ and the Taliban as enemies there, history shows this cannot be done with any resulting success. A resurgent Taliban combined with no US presence equals the fall of Pakistan and the new problem of nukes thrown into the equation.

Finally, from a humanitarian standpoint, the US flight will result in major human rights violations that cannot be tolerated. One only need look back at footage of women being executed in stadiums for the most minor of offenses, and footage of women being disfigured (acid in their face, etc.) to know that Taliban control means crimes against humanity. So there IS more than one reason to stay, IMO.

As for McChrystal, didn't Obama himself appoint him to run the Af-Pak theater? A general's job is to carry out military operations, and to do this one properly, he needs more troops. He's not privy--nor should he be--to political goals and/or esoteric interests in the region. He's' there to fight and to win, plain and simple. Sorry, but it isn't only neo-cons (whatever the hell that is) that are pushing to stay and win. Obama himself pushed it for 2 years while criticizing Bush at every turn. Dems pushed it as the necessary war. Now we are seeing that they said this for political reasons alone, not because they actually care about the people on the ground. Now, many Dems are still pushing it, even as the party splinters on the issue with others advocating flight and/or altering the plan entirely.

What is your problem with Obama? It's got to be more than just the politics. You have some kind of deep hangup about the guy. Read the damn article posted, for once. That will answer most of your questions. This Thursday, watch a documentary on NBC called "The Tip of the Spear." We can certainly support Pakistan without having boots on the ground. I was listening to the retired general in charge of their army on the radio this AM. What they want is money and weapons and they'll fight the Taliban themselves. Why has Obama changed the strategy in Afghanistan? Because the situation has changed. Al Queda, for the most part, is gone. They have changed their tactics. They no longer need training bases. They are on the internet. The next Al Queda attack will probably come from home grown terrorists. Why are we responsible for what the Taliban do in Afghanistan? Are we responsible for what every tyrant does in every other country on Earth? That's the UN's job.

We can do in Afghanistan exactly what we did in Vietnam; Kill 58,000 Americans, spend billions of wealth we don't have, and kill millions of Afghanis while completely destroying their country - and we'll get the same result. Why? Because the Taliban are endemic to Afghanistan. Like "The Tip of the Spear" points out, you can't tell an Afghani from a Taliban. Why? Because there is no difference. The guy your general has tea with this morning is planting an IUD tonight. Remind us of anything? Maybe the VC?

I just want to know what concrete result we can expect from "victory" in Afghanistan. Name one.

[Smiling Assassin27]

What is your problem with Obama? It's got to be more than just the politics. You have some kind of deep hangup about the guy. Read the damn article posted, for once. That will answer most of your questions. This Thursday, watch a documentary on NBC called "The Tip of the Spear." We can certainly support Pakistan without having boots on the ground. I was listening to the retired general in charge of their army on the radio this AM. What they want is money and weapons and they'll fight the Taliban themselves. Why has Obama changed the strategy in Afghanistan? Because the situation has changed. Al Queda, for the most part, is gone. They have changed their tactics. They no longer need training bases. They are on the internet. The next Al Queda attack will probably come from home grown terrorists. Why are we responsible for what the Taliban do in Afghanistan? Are we responsible for what every tyrant does in every other country on Earth? That's the UN's job.

We can do in Afghanistan exactly what we did in Vietnam; Kill 58,000 Americans, spend billions of wealth we don't have, and kill millions of Afghanis while completely destroying their country - and we'll get the same result. Why? Because the Taliban are endemic to Afghanistan. Like "The Tip of the Spear" points out, you can't tell an Afghani from a Taliban. Why? Because there is no difference. The guy your general has tea with this morning is planting an IUD tonight. Remind us of anything? Maybe the VC?

I just want to know what concrete result we can expect from "victory" in Afghanistan. Name one.


What is my problem with Obama? Dude, if you don't know that by now, you've either ignored my posts altogether or just aren't willing to honestly read my criticisms of him. I take being lied to personally. When a guy says he wants to be President and looks me in the eye and promises to do things, I take it personally when he reneges. And IF he renges for a good reason (like Obama not closing Gitmo like he promised to do by year end), then I question his judgment in making a promise he never could keep as nothing more than political pandering--a desire for a position. That person does not deserve my assent, not does he deserve my loyalty. I expect a leader in the CIC chair. Obama is not that, soory. If you really want to know my problem with Obama, PM me and we can discuss it honestly, though I've typed it here hudnreds of times. I know you badly want to call me a racist and leave it at that, though.

I've seen the documentary. Sorry, did you say 'the UN's job'? Why do you assign it a job that it will never want, never take, and, if forced to, would implement it abhorrently?

You say AQ is largely gone from Afghanistan. Untrue. McChrystal has said that they are largely absent from the insurgency, but said nothing about joint operations with the Taliban, tactical assistance, and provision of suicide bombers for Taliban operations. These remain and contribute significantly to the Taliban resurgence, like it or not. AQ's paramilitary is on the Afghan-Pakistan border and provides troops to the Taliban in both countries. Waziristan is a prime example of AQ and the Taliban working together. This place came about as a result of Pakistani armies essentially giving up. They've set up a joint central bank together to fund their joint operations. If the US leaves, we will have this type of safe haven all over both countries.

The problem with providing Pakistanis with money and guns to fight is that Pakistan's military intelligence community is filled with Taliban sympathizers and the Taliban gets substantial support because they could be useful in the fight against India, should there be one. We may end up arming the enemy. If the US leaves, and the Taliban control Afghanistan, getting Pakistan to cooperate in fighting AQ will be even more difficult.

You say the Taliban are endemic to Afghanistan. I agree. Does this mean we should cede them land and try to make nice? While separating Afghan from Taliban is difficult, so is separating Taliban from AQ. The reality is that a US defeat here would be a victory not just for the Taliban, but also AQ, and the other insurgency groups that are anti-west. One thing you are correct about--this could be another vietnam. After we left and essentially abandoned our allies in Southeast Asia, 4 million people were slaughtered in Cambodia and Vietnam. This will come to pass in Afghanistan as well. And if we are not going to do the job and give our guys and gals every advantage, then it will be like Vietnam.

The concrete result we'd gain, if we won, is this. If the Taliban are defeated, they will not be able to host camps for AQ's paramilitary external network--you know, the one whose job it is to carry out acts of terrorism in the West? You do not seem to buy the threat and the interwoven loyalties that exist, all with one mission--expel the West so they can get on with acquiring land and establishing control. Furthermore, the oppression and death that awaits the everyday people of the region would not occur if we win.

I'm not entirely on board with staying and fighting this out, but I certainly understand what's at stake in doing so. But we either do it properly, or dont' do it at all. Americans are vulnerable right now, so the idea that we can delay this decision is callous, IMO. If we are to pull them, then pull them and prepare accordingly. If we are to stay, then stay and persevere. But decide now if we are to lose with honor and get them out before more American lives are lost for NO cause.

[Rohirrim]

I really can't see where the expenditure of years, money and lives will be worth the result even if we win, and given the history of the region, that is unlikely. Last night, Petraeus, the man who wrote the book on counter-insurgency, stated that a likely time-frame of involvement would be fourteen years. What are the chances of the people of the U.S. going through a recession while agreeing to that? Basically, it boils down to the U.S. providing the Aghan people with a security force for fourteen years.

Terrorism is a tactic. We will be attacked again, whether we stay there or not. Look at the wealth, time and effort Israel has expended on anti-terrorism for forty years. Has it worked? If we succeed in shutting them down in Afghanistan then they move to Somalia, or somewhere else in Africa, or Syria, or who knows how many other places. The guys who flew the planes on 911, some of them, were right here in the U.S. for years. You don't stop terrorism by pretending you can stop them from building bases. Their base can be any random PC. You stop them with intelligence and police work.

We can spend twenty years in Afghanistan and when we leave, it will be just like Vietnam; It will go back to what it is. Face it, Afghanistan will never be a cohesive nation state. Never was. Never will be. And we can't impose one on them, even if we spend all our money, blood and time trying to shove it down their throats.

[sisterhellfyre]

If the US pulls out of Afghanistan, we then risk losing TWO nations--Afghanistan and Pakistan--to the Taliban.

One question, SA: are Pakistan and Afghanistan "ours" to "lose"?

Whatever happened to the founders' principle that people should be free to govern themselves and live as they choose? Does that only apply if we like the people and the form of government they choose?

If the people of Afghanistan want to live in a 12th-century feudal paradise ruled by superstitious witch doctors, let them. It's when the suicide fanatics come out to play that they should be smacked down. Hard.

Unfortunately for the military-industrial complex that Roh mentioned, that's a job for intelligence, special forces and detective/police work. It's a damned poor excuse for an extended operation that drains billions of dollars each month into some black hole. And the people running the extended op tell us that it MUST continue into the foreseeable future, month after month and years without end, amen?

Screw that. Bring the troops home now and send some of those monthly billions into the intelligence and special forces work that will keep the suicide fanatics in their Afghan caves. It'll be cheaper and more efficient by far.

[sisterhellfyre]

The guy your general has tea with this morning is planting an IUD tonight.

Um, Roh? I think that should be IED, not IUD.

Unless the general's morning tea guest happens to be a gynecologist.

[Bronx33]

One question, SA: are Pakistan and Afghanistan "ours" to "lose"?

Whatever happened to the founders' principle that people should be free to govern themselves and live as they choose? Does that only apply if we like the people and the form of government they choose?

If the people of Afghanistan want to live in a 12th-century feudal paradise ruled by superstitious witch doctors, let them. It's when the suicide fanatics come out to play that they should be smacked down. Hard.

Unfortunately for the military-industrial complex that Roh mentioned, that's a job for intelligence, special forces and detective/police work. It's a damned poor excuse for an extended operation that drains billions of dollars each month into some black hole. And the people running the extended op tell us that it MUST continue into the foreseeable future, month after month and years without end, amen?

Screw that. Bring the troops home now and send some of those monthly billions into the intelligence and special forces work that will keep the suicide fanatics in their Afghan caves. It'll be cheaper and more efficient by far.

Did you bother to ask real afgannis if they want the taliban to rule their lives or to live in the 12th century? these people braved death just to vote to better there country. The sad fact is if we don't deal with afganistan now we will be dealing with it later and it will be worse and cost even more lives and money.

http://blog.taragana.com/n/obama-applauds-afghans-for-voting-despite-taliban-intimidation-warns-of-more-violence-ahead-146356/

[Rohirrim]

Um, Roh? I think that should be IED, not IUD.

Unless the general's morning tea guest happens to be a gynecologist.

Oops. :rofl:

[Rohirrim]

Did you bother to ask real afgannis if they want the taliban to rule their lives or to live in the 12th century? these people braved death just to vote to better there country. The sad fact is if we don't deal with afganistan now we will be dealing with it later and it will be worse and cost even more lives and money.
http://blog.taragana.com/n/obama-applauds-afghans-for-voting-despite-taliban-intimidation-warns-of-more-violence-ahead-146356/

:bs:

[TexanBob]

If Obama is smart he will develop a strategy to hunt down and defeat and marginalize Alquieda!

The only way Democrats know how to do that is to tax people to death. Maybe Obama can put a really heavy tax on Afghani poppy fields. That'll show 'em who's boss. Hilarious!

[TexanBob]

Either commit and win or get out. Stop using our troops as a political football.

Exactly. If you don't plan to win, you're just costing lives by being there.

But Obama won't pull out because he doesn't want to be blamed for pulling the chicken switch.

[TexanBob]

I disowned McCain a long time ago. You guys can have him.

[rastaman]

The only way Democrats know how to do that is to tax people to death. Maybe Obama can put a really heavy tax on Afghani poppy fields. That'll show 'em who's boss. Hilarious!

Why not just tax to death every known Republican voting conservative in America.....that way the real Americans in this country won't be taxed so heavily.:clown:

[JJJ]

Pretty clear Obama is confused on this issue. Lets wait another 3 months while he restrategizes his comprehensive strategy he delivered in March.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What is your (Smiling A's) problem with Obama?

1. He's black
2. He's a Democrat
3. He's the POTUS.
4. He's black

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The most disgusting thing about this is that the media doesn't call him out on any of it. Our "Fourth Estate" has become a joke.

^ QFT.

http://www.bartcop.com/clinton-letterman.jpg

[epicSocialism4tw]

1. He's black
2. He's a Democrat
3. He's the POTUS.
4. He's black

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_z3zLnwZeL3o/SdGRyRicDVI/AAAAAAAAA24/jkyt9_Yq10k/s400/liberalism.gif

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I have no clue what "socialism" is, but it sure feels good to use the word in a sentence.

Rolls off the tongue quite nicely, and it makes me feel just as important as my role models Glenn Beck and Oxycontin Boy.



Fixed.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Fixed.

Ah...I see you like my idea. You have used it thus far on every thread. Hey, maybe you can take that idea back to the propaganda shop and share it with your comrades, eh?

If all else fails, you can always use this:
http://doesitallmatter.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/race-card-06.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ah...I see you like my idea.

"Your" idea?

Riiiight - you invented it.

Take your grandiosity meds today?

If all else fails, you can always use this:
http://doesitallmatter.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/race-card-06.jpg

If all else fails, you can use another "plantation owner" reference (or some other good ol' boy Klan code phrase...)

[epicSocialism4tw]

"Your" idea?

Riiiight - you invented it.

Take your grandiosity meds today?



If all else fails, you can use another "plantation owner" reference (or some other good ol' boy Klan code phrase...)

Ah...you show us all again that your capacity to read and comprehend is that of a five-year old. Way to go. Back to the plow, boy...your party demands it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ah...you show us all again that your capacity to read and comprehend is that of a five-year old. Way to go. Back to the plow, boy...your party demands it.

You show us all again that your ability to duck, dodge, deflect, and, when those tactics fail, simply make sh*t up is, well, pretty weak. Ha!

[epicSocialism4tw]

You show us all again that your ability to duck, dodge, deflect, and, when those tactics fail, simply make sh*t up is, well, pretty weak. Ha!

Your racist party is full of scumbags like you who do more to keep minorities people in poverty than the Sudanese Army.

LABF: "Get to the polls! We'll offer you a hundred bucks and we'll relieve you of police pressure! Get back in your low income housing and dont call us...we'll call you when its time to vote!"
http://shubelmorgan.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/slavery5.png

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Your racist party is full of scumbags like you who do more to keep minorities people in poverty than the Sudanese Army.


There you go thinking you're slipping another not-so-subtly coded racist statement by us again.

The upshot of your statement is that minorities are too stupid to know how to vote.

[epicSocialism4tw]

There you go thinking you're slipping another not-so-subtly coded racist statement by us again.

The upshot of your statement is that minorities are too stupid to know how to vote.

Yet another shining example of your inability to understand the english language. :rofl:

Here's a little explanation for someone else who may read this post...LABF is clearly unable to understand. The Democratic Party is the plantation. The Democratic Party only offers minorities trivial things that will not benefit them long term. The Democratic party a major reason why minorities comprise a large proportion of the impoverished.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yet another shining example of your inability to understand the english language. :rofl:

That wasn't English you were speaking - it was racist good ol' boy code speak.

To wit:

Here's a little explanation for someone else who may read this post...LABF is clearly unable to understand. The Democratic Party is the plantation. The Democratic Party only offers minorities trivial things that will not benefit them long term. The Democratic party a major reason why minorities comprise a large proportion of the impoverished.

The upshot of the above statement is that minorities, as a group, are a bunch of dupes who are too stupid to know how to vote.

(An interesting case of projection on your part, to be sure.) :D

[Odysseus]

Now I'm just sitting back and watching the whole machine (politics, press, internet, media) slowly turning the gears to coax the American people into buying the idea that we have no option than to spend a few decades in some dirt hole in middle Asia. All the same old lies, the same fear mongering, the same bs. There's only one reason to stay in Afghanistan. The military/industrial complex needs constant war. That's what it feeds on. Why would a general ever say we don't need more war? So he can spend the next ten years of his career at some desk in the Pentagon? Of course not. War must be constant. We need the jobs. And the worse the economy gets, the bigger the war we'll need.

Last week I was drinking chai with the Afghanistan National Army and I tell you this in all sincerity. The Taliban threat here is real. I think defeating them here is important but we face three real problems.

First of all the military is tired of being here. Three deployments is more than any real marriage can bear. How do you put families first when you send war fighters into harm's way.

Second McChrystal is right in that we need war fighters not support soldiers and we need to get this over with rather than play around.

Thirdly we signed up for a war without end years ago and no matter how fast we put on the brakes if we don't steer the car while we do we risk worst issues. We were going at 1,000 miles per hour. What is the proper braking speed applied?

My biggest question is where is China and Russia in all of this? You cut off the money and the terrorists are out of business. Where is the money coming from? How do we fight that war?

If we left today we would betray the trust of this nation. If you have not seen the movie Charlie Wilson's war take a minute and check that out.

[Rohirrim]

Last week I was drinking chai with the Afghanistan National Army and I tell you this in all sincerity. The Taliban threat here is real. I think defeating them here is important but we face three real problems.

First of all the military is tired of being here. Three deployments is more than any real marriage can bear. How do you put families first when you send war fighters into harm's way.

Second McChrystal is right in that we need war fighters not support soldiers and we need to get this over with rather than play around.

Thirdly we signed up for a war without end years ago and no matter how fast we put on the brakes if we don't steer the car while we do we risk worst issues. We were going at 1,000 miles per hour. What is the proper braking speed applied?

My biggest question is where is China and Russia in all of this? You cut off the money and the terrorists are out of business. Where is the money coming from? How do we fight that war?

If we left today we would betray the trust of this nation. If you have not seen the movie Charlie Wilson's war take a minute and check that out.

The money comes from every gallon of oil we buy in Saudi Arabia, same as it did during the mujahadeen days. I don't doubt that the Taliban threat is real, but if we were not there, would it be a threat to us? As an example, there are Al Queda in Somalia. We know that. But we are not there getting shot at by the Somali warlords. How are we combating the Al Queda threat from Somalia? No doubt through intelligence, international cooperation and police work.

Last year we gave $2 billion to Pakistan and something like $60 billion to Afghanistan. Afghanistan's government is so corrupt, I doubt we even know where much of that money ended up. IMO, those numbers should be reversed. Pakistan wants to fight the Taliban. Let's support them. General Jones says the Al Queda threat in Afghanistan is hugely diminished. That was our reason for being there. Now, let us shift over to stabilizing the most important government to our strategic needs in the region, Pakistan, and going after the Al Queda that remain in the tribal lands.

I did see Charlie Wilson's War. Great movie. We have made mistakes, no doubt about it. The biggest mistake of them all was leaving Afghanistan to go into Iraq. But right now, we are a burned out nation. Our economy is tanking. Our military is fried and stretched beyond breaking. We are not only broke. We are trillions of dollars in debt. We need to come to a great realization: We are not the answer to every problem in this world. The rest of the world has to understand that as well.

[Odysseus]

Either commit and win or get out. Stop using our troops as a political football.

It's unfortunately not a sprint but a long distance race. I don't deny the sacrifice the Canadians have put into this fight but the whole NATO concept is compromised. Let American soldiers fight. We need to take the battle to them and get this **** over with.

[Odysseus]

The money comes from every gallon of oil we buy in Saudi Arabia, same as it did during the mujahadeen days. I don't doubt that the Taliban threat is real, but if we were not there, would it be a threat to us? As an example, there are Al Queda in Somalia. We know that. But we are not there getting shot at by the Somali warlords. How are we combating the Al Queda threat from Somalia? No doubt through intelligence, international cooperation and police work.

Last year we gave $2 billion to Pakistan and something like $60 billion to Afghanistan. Afghanistan's government is so corrupt, I doubt we even know where much of that money ended up. IMO, those numbers should be reversed. Pakistan wants to fight the Taliban. Let's support them. General Jones says the Al Queda threat in Afghanistan is hugely diminished. That was our reason for being there. Now, let us shift over to stabilizing the most important government to our strategic needs in the region, Pakistan, and going after the Al Queda that remain in the tribal lands.

I did see Charlie Wilson's War. Great movie. We have made mistakes, no doubt about it. The biggest mistake of them all was leaving Afghanistan to go into Iraq. But right now, we are a burned out nation. Our economy is tanking. Our military is fried and stretched beyond breaking. We are not only broke. We are trillions of dollars in debt. We need to come to a great realization: We are not the answer to every problem in this world. The rest of the world has to understand that as well.

The soldiers coming to fight in Afghanistan are not from here. The Taliban is cash rich. Al Qaeda is broke. This could reverse but as of today those are the facts. The issues that we are not talking about is who is funding the Taliban and why? Where is that money coming from? If you want to assign a hit squad I would say hire a team of top flight hackers and get me that information. Raid their accounts. Shut them down. Kill the money and the war machine we are fighting dies.

Think about this. A soldier carries $50,000 worth of gear to fight a guy who wears $2.00 flip flops and a rag for a hat. Remember in 2003 when I posted quotes from "The Art of War" in my signature? Doesn't anybody in D.C. read that small and simple text? How is having 40,000 more guys all dressed up and nobody to kill profiting us? Please understand I get your what you are saying but until we start asking the real questions we really need to keep fighting these simple ****ers.

I cannot go into detail but I am going to say this for what it's worth. In Charlie Wilson's war it said "More than 50% of the population is under the age of 14." Where did we lose the end game? The correct answer is education. That has not changed. I am telling you this directly. Until we start focusing on beating the Taliban culturally we are not fighting the right fight.

Talking about Saudi, Iraq, or Pakistan is tangential rabbit holes. Nobody on this board understands our relationship with the Saudis. Iraq is a sidebar and historical reference. Pakistan does not want this fight. They don't have the heart for it. All those offensives are smoke and mirrors.

Right now we need time to kill the drug lords and cut off the money. We need war fighters not support soldiers. If you think NATO is going to DO anything you don't understand that ISAF stands for "I suck at fighting". Nobody on this planet has the resources to fight this fight but us and the sad facts are if we don't bring the heat to them then they will bring that to us. I think getting mad at Obama is stupid. How do you start an International dog fight and then raise your hand and say "My bad! I have to leave now. Have a nice day." You think we have security problems now? Try leaving. You have no idea the **** storm we would unleash.

I am not for this war or any war. Look it up. We ****ed up coming here but once you are in pitched battle you cannot walk away until that other guy is dead, quits or negotiates. The Taliban is laughing at our butts from behind the mountains. If we don't get them they will consider it a win and in a sad delusional way they are right.

We were stupid the way we came, we are stupid if we stay and we are stupid if we leave. Pick one.

[Rohirrim]

You also have to take into account we could send in 200,000 troops and in ten years, leave the same way the Soviets did.

I guess my final question is, for what? Do we envision winning the fight against the Taliban and creating an Afghanistan that never existed? Are we going to build them schools and highways while our own schools and highways fall apart? Are we going to overcome their warlordism? The other question I have is this: This guy Engles who is showing "The Tip of the Spear" tomorrow night on NBC, stated that only 6% of the people of Afghanistan want the Taliban to return. Given that the entire population seems to be armed, how do the Taliban overcome those odds? As far as the money coming into the Taliban, who knows. Maybe it's Putin getting even with us for backing the mujahideen? The stupidest choice of all the choices is to continue risking the lives of our people when there is no reason to do so.

[Rohirrim]

Well, here's an eye opener:

It is the open secret no one wants to talk about, the unwelcome truth that most prefer to hide. In Afghanistan, one of the richest sources of Taliban funding is the foreign assistance coming into the country.

Virtually every major project includes a healthy cut for the insurgents. Call it protection money, call it extortion, or, as the Taliban themselves prefer to term it, “spoils of war,” the fact remains that international donors, primarily the United States, are to a large extent financing their own enemy.

-------------------------

The degree of cooperation and coordination between the Taliban and aid workers is surprising, and would most likely make funders extremely uncomfortable.

One Afghan contractor, speaking privately, told friends of one project he was overseeing in the volatile south. The province cannot be mentioned, nor the particular project.

“I was building a bridge,” he said, one evening over drinks. “The local Taliban commander called and said ‘don’t build a bridge there, we’ll have to blow it up.’ I asked him to let me finish the bridge, collect the money — then they could blow it up whenever they wanted. We agreed, and I completed my project.”

In the south, no contract can be implemented without the Taliban taking a cut, sometimes at various steps along the way.

http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2009/08/13/who-is-funding-the-afghan-taliban-you-dont-want-to-know/

[Odysseus]

You also have to take into account we could send in 200,000 troops and in ten years, leave the same way the Soviets did.

I guess my final question is, for what? Do we envision winning the fight against the Taliban and creating an Afghanistan that never existed? Are we going to build them schools and highways while our own schools and highways fall apart? Are we going to overcome their warlordism? The other question I have is this: This guy Engles who is showing "The Tip of the Spear" tomorrow night on NBC, stated that only 6% of the people of Afghanistan want the Taliban to return. Given that the entire population seems to be armed, how do the Taliban overcome those odds? As far as the money coming into the Taliban, who knows. Maybe it's Putin getting even with us for backing the mujahideen? The stupidest choice of all the choices is to continue risking the lives of our people when there is no reason to do so.

We essentially have to pick a warlord, back him, kill the bad guys and then leave. It's like old school mafia.

Here is the real problem. Who is our real enemy and how do we kill that guy? We are getting played over here and nobody wants to mention names of the real players. Why isn't Iran getting called out by anybody else but us? I have a bigger question. Why IS Iran getting called out but nobody is mentioning whose putting money in their pockets?

Nobody on this board understand the real politics in Pakistan. Let's assume that this board is a reflection of the United States as whole. Nobody understands Pakistan. Dayum. How do you point out something obvious to somebody who doesn't know crap? It's the same with Iran. The big world is much more complicated than we seem to want to understand. We are nothing more than villagers huddled around a cyber fire muttering to ourselves. I think message boards are where conversations come to die mostly. I'm sure somebody is going to piss on my leg about that. Whatever man. It's what it is.

[Odysseus]

Well, here's an eye opener:

It is the open secret no one wants to talk about, the unwelcome truth that most prefer to hide. In Afghanistan, one of the richest sources of Taliban funding is the foreign assistance coming into the country.

Virtually every major project includes a healthy cut for the insurgents. Call it protection money, call it extortion, or, as the Taliban themselves prefer to term it, “spoils of war,” the fact remains that international donors, primarily the United States, are to a large extent financing their own enemy.

-------------------------

The degree of cooperation and coordination between the Taliban and aid workers is surprising, and would most likely make funders extremely uncomfortable.

One Afghan contractor, speaking privately, told friends of one project he was overseeing in the volatile south. The province cannot be mentioned, nor the particular project.

“I was building a bridge,” he said, one evening over drinks. “The local Taliban commander called and said ‘don’t build a bridge there, we’ll have to blow it up.’ I asked him to let me finish the bridge, collect the money — then they could blow it up whenever they wanted. We agreed, and I completed my project.”

In the south, no contract can be implemented without the Taliban taking a cut, sometimes at various steps along the way.

http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2009/08/13/who-is-funding-the-afghan-taliban-you-dont-want-to-know/

This is the cleaned up nice version. It's all true. Now what? Leave? Great. Now you have unified our enemies, killed our allies, and emboldened the ignorant. Great job!

[Rohirrim]

Former Bush State Department official and current head of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haas argued in the New York Times that Afghanistan is not, as Obama insists, a war of necessity. "If Afghanistan were a war of necessity, it would justify any level of effort," writes Haas. "It is not and does not. It is not certain that doing more will achieve more. And no one should forget that doing more in Afghanistan lessens our ability to act elsewhere."

In Rethink Afghanistan, Robert Greenwald's powerful look at the war (and a film Joe Biden should see right away), Robert Baer, a former CIA field operative says, "The notion that we're in Afghanistan to make our country safer is just complete bull****... what it's doing is causing us greater danger, no question about it. Because the more we fight in Afghanistan, the more the conflict is pushed across the border into Pakistan, the more we destabilize Pakistan, the more likely it is that a fundamentalist government will take over the army -- and we'll have Al-Qaeda like groups with nuclear weapons."

And former Senator Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam vet and Biden confidant, told Newsweek that, while "there are a lot of differences" between Vietnam and Afghanistan, "one of the similarities is how easily and quickly a nation can get bogged down in a very dangerous part of the world. It's easy to get into but not easy to get out. The more troops you throw in places, the more difficult it is to work it out because you have an investment to protect." (Huff post)

[Bronx33]

Funny how political meddling seems to always bog down wars if it's handled correctly from start to finish by qualified people re: WW2 shyt gets done and we win.

[Rohirrim]

Funny how political meddling seems to always bog down wars if it's handled correctly from start to finish by qualified people re: WW2 shyt gets done and we win.

How about Gulf War I? Why did that work? Because we learned something in Vietnam. We codified what we had learned in the Powell Doctrine. Then, Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney decided that they were smarter than Powell, when it came to military matters, so they dumped it and went with Rummy's "new" version of the military. That's why we're stuck in the ****-storm we're in today.

[Bronx33]

How about Gulf War I? Why did that work? Because we learned something in Vietnam. We codified what we had learned in the Powell Doctrine. Then, Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney decided that they were smarter than Powell, when it came to military matters, so they dumped it and went with Rummy's "new" version of the military. That's why we're stuck in the ****-storm we're in today.


Gulf one was a beatdown but we shouldn't have stopped till it was done i knew that was a mistake so no gulf one fell short of completion.

[Odysseus]

Gulf one was a beatdown but we shouldn't have stopped till it was done i knew that was a mistake so no gulf one fell short of completion.

Norman had eyes on Saddam. He could have touched him if he wanted to. GWHB did not want to make a Martyr of Saddam. I wonder if he did not want to empower his son or what was really going on then.

I've been in the house the was bombed where the Baathist party resided. Unless you were familiar with the stories of Saddam and his sons it's pretty hard to put that stuff in perspective.


http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1992/11/02/77068/index.htm

http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/03/07/08.html


"They kept telling [the troops] that as soon as you get to Baghdad you would be going home," one soldier's wife told the Guardian. "The way home is through Baghdad, they said." [LINK] And though Bush promised troops would not remain in Iraq "for one day longer than is necessary" officials are talking about "maintaining perhaps four bases in Iraq" [LINK] and staying there indefinitely. Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, "This idea that we will be in just as long as we need to and not a day more -- we've got to get over that rhetoric. It is rubbish. We're going to be there a long time. We must reorganize our military to be there a long time." [LINK]

[Bronx33]

Norman had eyes on Saddam. He could have touched him if he wanted to. GWHB did not want to make a Martyr of Saddam. I wonder if he did not want to empower his son or what was really going on then.

I've been in the house the was bombed where the Baathist party resided. Unless you were familiar with the stories of Saddam and his sons it's pretty hard to put that stuff in perspective.


http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1992/11/02/77068/index.htm

http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/03/07/08.html


"They kept telling [the troops] that as soon as you get to Baghdad you would be going home," one soldier's wife told the Guardian. "The way home is through Baghdad, they said." [LINK] And though Bush promised troops would not remain in Iraq "for one day longer than is necessary" officials are talking about "maintaining perhaps four bases in Iraq" [LINK] and staying there indefinitely. Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, "This idea that we will be in just as long as we need to and not a day more -- we've got to get over that rhetoric. It is rubbish. We're going to be there a long time. We must reorganize our military to be there a long time." [LINK]


I have read and seen all the documentaries on saddam and the world is better place without him iam a military channel fanatic ;D i looooove all the old war footage and stories, my best friend was with 1/7/charley in GW1 also my cousin was in that house i think he was with 1/7/alpha which you know went up the gut in GW2 i have heard the stories from both of them.

[rastaman]

I have read and seen all the documentaries on saddam and the world is better place without him iam a military channel fanatic ;D i looooove all the old war footage and stories, my best friend was with 1/7/charley in GW1 also my cousin was in that house i think he was with 1/7/alpha which you know went up the gut in GW2 i have heard the stories from both of them.

Saddam will only be replaced with another dictator. ;D