Sensible caution or more dithering?
President Obama is turning the screws on Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai, demanding that he gets serious about corruption, before the US comes up with any more troops. The US ambassador to Afghanistan has been even more forthright, sending a supposedly secret cable urging against further troop deployments.
The eighth meeting in the White House situation room was discussing four options on troop numbers, but it seems as if the discussion went back to basics, and focused a great deal on whether the Afghan government was a fit partner.
We're told the president was concerned about timelines: when would Nato forces be able to hand over to the Afghan army, and when would they be able to leave. It's clear he wants any announcement of increased troop numbers to go hand in hand with a clear exit strategy.
There were, we are told, mounting questions about the credibility of the Afghan government. No wonder. The president was being told by the US ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, who used to be the top commander in the field there, not to send more troops.
The BBC has spoken to an official who confirmed that the ambassador sent at least one cable saying that sending more troops was "not a good idea". The source said that the intervention was seen as "dramatic" and that the man who is now in charge of the military operation, General Stanley McChrystal, was left "fuming" at this outright opposition to his call for 40,000 more troops. If these two hard men in the field are at loggerheads it doesn't bode well for any new strategy.
The Washington Post says Eikenberry's main concern is that the Afghan Government shows no sign of addressing the concerns that have been repeatedly raised with them, and that sending more troops would increase their dependence on the United States, rather than building up their own forces.
The offical White House statement after the meeting was pretty blunt:
"The president believes that we need to make clear to the Afghan government that our commitment is not open ended. After years of substantial investments by the American people, governance in Afghanistan must improve in a reasonable period of time to ensure a successful transition to our Afghan partner."
My translation into even less diplomatic language would be: "We can't send more troops unless Karzai improves, otherwise we'll be there for ever."
The Associated Press version goes a little bit further, saying that Mr Obama has rejected all four options currently on the table:
"President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when US troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government".
But again the core of the objection is about refusing to send more troops unless there is a clear exit strategy, and a responsible Afghan partner.
So a warning to Hamid Karzai to shape up. But is the administration just sending a message, or is it really still in agonies about which direction to take?
Is it a bluff or could the president really send far fewer troops than expected? Sensible caution or more dithering? What do you think?
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~08~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Mark, why do your posts ask questions of the contributors? Isn't this blog supposed to be about your "reflections on American politics (and) some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA"? Why should British readers be any better informed than the rest of us? It seems that you want us to do your work for you.
My guess is that the President (note the upper case 'p') will send fewer troops than requested, not far fewer, but few enough to make his point.
Complain about this comment
Barack Obama certainly takes his time over this kind of decision. And the leaking of the letter from Karl Eikenberry may be his way of undermining General McChrystal, which would not in my view bode well. However, the honest answer is that we don't know how good Obama is at this kind of very difficult judgment, and then at sticking to whatever he does decide, even if it makes him unpopular in some quarters - something President Bush was good at, whatever his other faults. Unlike Bush, Obama's not had much - in fact, make that no - executive experience before being made President of the United States. Quite a step of faith by the American people. Even then, we wouldn't really know. Give the difficulty and the importance of the issue, including for our own troops, who are generally very supportive of General McChrystal and his latest counter-insurgency strategy, I'd still give the President the benefit of the doubt. And pray for him. Decreasing corruption at the centre has to part of the process, to be sure. If he can pull that off and improve the military situation as well, he may even show the Nobel prize committee to be prescient.
Complain about this comment
This whole thing is absurd.Karzai couldn't shape the country up if he wanted to.He is no more than the top dog of Kabul.I've got as much of a chance of eliminating corruption as he does.
A poster above said if Obama can pull this off it will show the Nobel prize to be prescient. Good luck - Jesus Christ himself returning from the heavens above couldn't eliminate or even significantly reduce corruption in these 3rd world countries.
Complain about this comment
How wonderful that a Western government is demanding that corruption be rooted out in Afghanistan before a decision on troop levels is made! After all, our governments are known for setting an example of pristine integrity. (Actually, in my own country we had a major sposorship scandal not many years ago, and I seem to remember scandals in the U.K. and the U.S.) There seems to be no recognition that in the middle of a war it might be difficult for an Afghan leader to root out corruption, assuming he was dedicated to doing so. As for demanding perfect standards of democracy, I seem to remember elections having been postponed till after the war in more than one Western country during World War II. At the rate Obama is dithering the war in Afghanistan may be effectively lost before he makes a decisionl.
Complain about this comment
Regarding comment 1:
I think the point of the blog posts ending in questions is to make us (the readers/posters) feel involved with the blogging process, like we're contributing something. Not that Mardell's a slacker who's trying to use us as free labour (that would be funny, though). Many of us (particularly on this blog), aren't British, either.
As for the topic, I'm going to go with: Obama's 70% dithering, 30% paternalistically trying to get the Afghan state to improve its game.
Complain about this comment
Odd as it sounds, there is such a thing as purposeful dithering. Although politics has trained the public to expect "decisive action", the decision to wait and see can be very useful. It is the decision not to send troops, but with the option to change your plan if the Afghan government responds to diplomacy. And if they don't respond -- well, you haven't sent troops. A public presidential declaration "we are not sending troops" might play better a the media concerned about personal decisiveness, but it would not leave the same room for diplomacy.
Complain about this comment
Generals always want more troops. They want to win battles and you need troops for this. Diplomats always want to solve problems using diplomacy. The friction between diplomats and generals is as old as politics.
The big question here is not how many troops but what the objective is. Once you have a clear objective then the troop levels, duration and approach fall into place. Is the objective eliminating Al Qaeada, destroying the Taliban, establishing a democratic country or something else? The objective dictates the resourcing, not the other way round.
Complain about this comment
As an ambassador, Eikenberry is expected to be a diplomat.
This is hardly what I'd call diplomatic. If I were Obama, I'd summon him to explain a) his comments and b) how they came to be public.
Complain about this comment
4. At 07:09am on 12 Nov 2009, tedincanada wrote:
As for demanding perfect standards of democracy, I seem to remember elections having been postponed till after the war in more than one Western country during World War II.
Most "Western" countries? I don't know what "Western" countries you're referring to. Except for neutral Switzerland, Europe was occupied by Fascists, who weren't much given to holding fair and democratic elections. The UK had a national government of all parties who were united for the duration, so no elections were necessary. And the US... Well, we re-elected Franklin D. Roosevelt in the middle of WWII. No biggie. We also held national elections during our Civil War. True, the Confederacy didn't vote and didn't hold elections, but then their constitution gave their President a six year term and the war ended before they could hold them.
If you want America to go to war on your schedule, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. And since you're so eager to see someone else's husbands, wives, sons and daughters die for your safety, then maybe you need to go to your local American embassy and enlist in the US Army. I'm sure they'll take you. Right about now, with our military exhausted thanks to George Bush, they'll take just about anybody.
Complain about this comment
2 rdrake
"Unlike Bush, Obama's not had much - in fact, make that no - executive experience before being made President of the United States. Quite a step of faith by the American people."
A step of faith it may have been, but one that was made conclusively by the American people last november, in the full knowledge that the economy was in freefall and the US was heavily embroiled in two difficult foreign wars.
I guess people had had enough of the sort of executive experience brought to the White House by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove.
To now chastise Obama for caution (and no, I do not see dithering) is a bit rich, after all the US voted for a more "thinking" policy on the wars.
You are perfectly correct when you state
"we don't know how good Obama is at this kind of very difficult judgment"
but then that could equally be said of any new President - there is no comparison in any other role with the importance and long-term and long-range affects of presidential action.
What we do know, with the benefit of hindsight, is that the very popular (populist?) policy of GWB did not turn out to be very good really, so for my money I'll let Obama have his time.
Complain about this comment
8. Mark wrote:
"As an ambassador, Eikenberry is expected to be a diplomat.
This is hardly what I'd call diplomatic. If I were Obama, I'd summon him to explain a) his comments and b) how they came to be public."
Is there anything to suggest the letter was leaked by the Ambassador's team - it could have come from the White House.
Complain about this comment
IMO it is entirely proper to play a slow game (dither?) over the Afghan government.
Until the government actually represents the country and it's people and is not just "this year's friendly dictator" (remember Sadaam, our friend from the 1980s anyone)then we should send no more troops, but should invest a fraction (or preferably more) of the money in building schools and other infrastructure to help the people rise out of poverty and oppression so they can make their own decisions.
Only through education can the poison of fundamentalism be drawn out of society (and yes I include the USA, just to be controversial and to upset the creationists).
Complain about this comment
Mark, I wonder if you would agree, but I have a feeling that you are grooming your (western) soldiers to be sissies. Ain't you? Day in and day out you are showing pictures of your soldiers and their families in distress with the sole intention of stirring emotions. Please know that these soldiers are fighting your war. Taliban are a threat, clear and present, for the west as much as they are a liability for the people where they are presently wreaking havoc. Peshawar, where I live is bearing the brunt of the Taliban Scourge despite the fact that the Islamic religion is practised in its nearly purest form here in this part of the world. The Taliban are definitely not unbeatable. In fact quite to the contrary they are the most coward people living on the planet as they could be seen turning themselves into human bombs and killing innocent people instead of facing their enemy head on. Where are the British soldiers of the nineteenth century who fought valiantly in our areas despite the fact that they were six months long travel away from their kith and kin? I miss John Nicholson; we don't like these toy soldiers.
Complain about this comment
This was the type of indecision and lack of leadership experience many of us pointed out and were scoffed at by the hope and change brigade.
Obama has had enough time to make what ever decision he chooses.
Unlike Bush, he looks at oppinion polls for every decision or if he can satisfy the base. that is good for a local Chicago politician but not for the President.
Complain about this comment
The point is, I think, that in the West we use the ethically loaded 'boo word' 'corruption'. In much of the rest of the world the system of clientship, in different guises and in varying degrees, is the very definition of politics. I get to a position of power thanks to my connections, local influence and so on in order to manouevre on behalf of my power base, thus strengthening my hand. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.There is simply no conception of acting for the common good. There is no wider community. And this is without taking into account the flimsiness of an artificial country like Afghanistan, riven as it is with ethnic, linguistic and even religious differences. Eliminating corruption will take decades. God knows they've been trying hard enough here in Italy since the Renaissance.
Complain about this comment
The responsibility for the present "crisis" lies with the idiot who leaked Eikenberry's private communication to the outside world.
As titular head of all the US armed forces, President Obama is ultimately responsible for all US troop deaths in Afghanistan. An Afghan presidential runoff election was cancelled to avoid any troop deaths due to protecting voters. Obama cannot casually deploy thousands of troops when death can hit anywhere at any time. His decision will in any case take months of lead time to execute - it has to be the right decision. the President has the right to take time to decide. It's not up to the media, and our opinions don't count.
Complain about this comment
President Obama is right in putting a squeeze on the Afghan governmet and telling them to get their act together. As things are at present USA and Uk and other countries suppling forces will be in Afghanistan for ever losing young men and women to no purpose. The Afghan regime must understand they have to take responsibility for their own country and people There is only so much outside forces can help them. However grieving it is to see the suffering at the hand of the Taleban. Most important is that those supplying money and weapons to Taleban should be stopped immediately. Pakistan must also realize that they have to take a singularly determined stand against the Taleban.
Complain about this comment
ref #10
I would have thought last week's election would have made it clearer: The 2008 votes was based for many on:
Its the economy stupid and throw the bums out.
If the congressional election were held now; Reid, Dodd and several other would be thrown out.
Complain about this comment
As a business consultant I was taught to grade decisions/actions by a 2x2 matrix of importance and urgency. The decision to send in more (how many?) troops or not is clearly very important, but is it absolutely urgent?
President Kennedy, in reacting to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, had a critical decision to make in a very short time window. Dithering (or reflecting) would have missed an opportunity to nip the conflict in the bud. I do not see the same need for urgency with Obama's troop decision.
A hasty decision, once made, is difficult to retract. We've had all too many of those before. It will be politically devastating to have to withdraw these extra troops in the future if their presence is not seen to be militarily effective or socially constructive. In my view, better to spend enough time considering all the issues - beyond just the military - and then act, knowing that the action is based on sound and balanced reasoning.
Learning from mistakes in Iraq, we need to look beyond just the military conflict and align the military actions with the overall political and social objectives in Afghanistan. Are we really sure we know what these are?
Complain about this comment
15. Julian wrote:
"In much of the rest of the world the system of clientship, in different guises and in varying degrees, is the very definition of politics."
Not just the rest of the world .... how about the lobbying and capaign donations in US politics.
"I get to a position of power thanks to my connections, local influence and so on in order to manouevre on behalf of my power base, thus strengthening my hand. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.There is simply no conception of acting for the common good. There is no wider community."
Great synopsis of much (no, not all) of US politics. Look at the healthcare debate ....the common good has not even raised its head.
Complain about this comment
18 magic
much as you wish the whole world hates obama now, it simply isn't true .... and nor is it in the USA.
Last week's election results were a fairly predictable blip .... I notice you don't see the house seats gone to the Dems as evidence of a swing in favour of obama.... no.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Mardell,
Most all Americans are extremel welcoming of "outsiders'" perspectives on our nations's affairs and operations. This is true in consideration of both in-country and international matters. We certainly enjoy the freedoms that allow us to examine these views, at will.
Looking the postings so far today, it seems that a prevailing assumption is that McChrystal is a toatlly innocent warrior, apolitical in his decision-making so far. From what we have learned, however, this is not the case. In brief: He is part of the eraly-1970s graduating classes from the US Military Academy (West Point). Elements of this group which have been in charge lately are considered by many a cabal, one for which any answer must be a military answer, one for which there is not unwinnable war no matter the cost or time. This group had be harbored for years by the Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfwotitz crowd---those who had not served but loved strutting their generals and hawkish poses.
Pressing concerns might have left this situation linger a little too long. Obama is now signalling that this takeover of diplomatic, commercial, and foreign aid responsibilities by our own military junta has ended. McChrystal had the gall to paint our elected President into a corner with his self-serving, narrow-viewed "solutions" to Afghanistan; let us see what that ultimately gets him.
Thank you for your continued openness---
Complain about this comment
Re: Romestu's retort # 20
Must we always be dragged back to the old shibboleth that because Western democracies are imperfect, therefore there is some kind of moral equivalence with every unsavoury regime on the planet?
But consider this: do we see anyone wringing his hands because the Xingmomamu tribe in Amazonia or the Timboragali in Borneo are less than fully functioning democracies and practice some pretty dubious rituals? And as for rights... We might comment on their being gentle or fierce, but complain?
Why not?
Complain about this comment
I am delighted to have a President that considers all options and the consequences of foreign policy decisions instead of an impetuous one with a tendency to shoot from the hip.
I agree with DC, President Obama will probably increase troop levels, but not by 40,000. The Afghan government had plenty of time to build an effective army, unfortunately they seem more interested in letting foreign troops do the dirty work, while they tend to their poppy fields, than worry about the future of their country.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that the main purpose of a large US/NATO military presence in Afghanistan is simply to keep Karzai in power and deliver an object lesson to the Islamic world. A long term strategy - including an exit strategy - as well as clear objectives are an absolute necessity.
Complain about this comment
Of course Obama is waffling on this is issue,it takes money away from the socialization of the USA.This man will not be happy untill we have no strength left and have a big nannie state like europe.
Complain about this comment
Why the "more dithering" in the headline?
What is the evidence that there was ever any dithering, much less "more" dithering? Because the discredited Dick Cheney says something does it make it so?
Complain about this comment
Field commanders request increases in troop levels, armaments, and changes in tactics to win battles and, hopefully, a war. The President, his Cabinet, top government officials - including the Ambassador in the applicable country - must consider military as well as moral, political, and socio-economic issues before making a decision. In effect, the former looks at short term and very narrow goals, the latter must look at the long term consequences of the decisions we make.
Considering the fact that we are not fighting a formal army, and that our targets are an elusive terrorist group (Al Qaeda), a movement that enjoys broad popular support (the Taliban), and the fact that our presence is not welcome in Afghanistan we must consider all options carefully.
Complain about this comment
ref #20
RomeStu wrote:
18 magic
much as you wish the whole world hates obama now, it simply isn't true .... and nor is it in the USA.
Last week's election results were a fairly predictable blip .... I notice you don't see the house seats gone to the Dems as evidence of a swing in favour of obama.... no.
_____________________-
First the polls say the American people agree with McChristal not Obama . I would rather have our President feared and respected than walked all over.
The Governors races are far more important indicator especially NJ.
He is popular his policies aren't.
Complain about this comment
23 julian
I certainly do not imply a moral equivalance with unsavoury regimes .... just that I feel the level of hypocrisy shown by the west in our quest to bring democracy to the barbarians is not lost on them.
It was your statement that other countries have these problems, and not us that made me respond lke that .... do not put words in my mouth.
Complain about this comment
Until Afghanistan has a leadership and government that can work effectively within its own borders, the decision on additional troop deployment seems almost moot.
Any deployment is going to be open ended as there seems to be no likelyhood of a minimally corrupt functional Afghan government that has the trust of regional tribal leaders and can deploy an effective security force.
Can Karzai achieve this? unlikely
Is there an alternative to Karzai? unlikely
Can Afganistan ever be completely governable? unlikely
Under the current aspirations of what success in Afghanistan should look like, I can't see a viable exit strategy being in place for many years with the exception of cutting and running and unfortunately, cutting and running may well be only exit strategy unless the US public (and to a lesser extent the UK public and other allies) are willing to see their armed forces continue to take casulties ad infinum.
Rather than ill thought out, costly and protracted millitary campaigns, perhaps the only real answer is to secure our own borders from terrorists as much as we can and try to prevent homegrown extremism.
Either way is very difficult
Complain about this comment
ref #27
Considering the fact that we are not fighting a formal army, and that our targets are an elusive terrorist group (Al Qaeda), a movement that enjoys broad popular support (the Taliban), and the fact that our presence is not welcome in Afghanistan we must consider all options carefully.
______________________--
These groups do not have wide support. They rule and exploit by fear. You think people actually want intolerant religous fanaticsdictating their lives? Weather those two groups are the war criminal Khomeni they rule by repression.
Complain about this comment
The dithering seems to have come from the Bush Cheney administration, who spent nearly eight years creating this disaster.
Complain about this comment
The argument of whether or not to send more troops is something that all countries involved in this war need to consider. It is not just an American decision.
Confidence in the Afghanistan War has also deteriorated amongst the British people. Most people are wondering how long we can continue to support this operation.
When a senior figure in Afghanistan warns against sending more troops without the assurance of progress from the local government we all should take notice. Otherwise we will be sacrificing yet more British soliders to a cause that is essentially unwinnable.
The spectre of the Vietnam war must be uppermost in the american's minds.
Complain about this comment
No, Obama's not dithering, he's just figuring out a reasonable objective, which is why he's resisting the generals' calls for 30k or 40k troops. As Clausowitz noted in his seminal work On War, every war needs to have a political objective. He was a great German general who was given the high honor of making a war plan against France (before WWI), but refused. Why? Because he kept on asking what the objective of the war was and the high command simply said, "To beat France." His point: war without objective costs lives for no clear purpose. And that's exactly what WWI turned into: even though the German state department pushed for a political settlement in early 1918 because they thought the war was unwinnable, the generals persuaded the Kaiser to launch a last attack. Millions more were needlessly lost. It's the same situation in Afghanistan, on a smaller scale.
It's stupid to just go in with no other objective than "beat the terrorists." Then what? When do you leave? Considering the US and NATO have been in Afghanistan for over 8 years and we're talking about increasing troop levels, it seems no real long-term plan is there. Without a firm strategy, any decision on troop levels is unreasonable.
Complain about this comment
"Ambassador" Elkenberry is also ex-General Elkenberry, who promoted the kind of "afghanisation" people are writing about as an exit strategy when he was boss there for a couple of years back in 2002/3 and reiterated it in a public [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator](isn't this an odd thing for either a general or an ambassador to do?) six months ago. He has, obviously, a vested interest in seeing 'his' policy being seen to succeed, if not for his own reputation, for his memoirs.
The end strategies of both McChrystal and Elkenberry are not really that dissimilar in reality; but they appear to disagree about the numbers of non-Afghan troops to do it.
The history of this intervention seems to be littered with as many battles between Generals and ex-Generals as there have been with the Taleban. And it rather shows the folly of turning soldiers into diplomats.
I didn't pay too much attention to it, but I heard an interview with the NATO Sec Gen yesterday in which he appeared to be hinting that unless whatever comes out of this to-ing and fro-ing involves a much cleare notion of how some sort of viable society (jobs, education, health, functioning civil government that does not rely on armed miiltias, whether Taleban or other, subject to either whim or money) the other NATO countries are really no longer interested.
Of course, being a diplomat and not a General, he put it a little more diplomatically.
I also heard an interview with the Governor of Afghanistan's poorest province (and god knows that must be in dire straits) pleading for job creation, schools, clinics and hospitals. But he also said the US army had now withdrawn from the province (which borders the North West Territories, it's not some quiet patch where people can quietly settle down and grow apricots) and, though he didn't say it directly, left them with nothing. The result? An NGO also left; a young Afghani who lost his job with them and could find no other now commands a Taleban contingent which controls his village and its surrounding area.
That, in practical terms, doesn't sound much like the policies of either McChrystal or Elkenberry; so who on earth is deciding the overall political strategy for Afghanistan? Anybody?
(Or is the answer, after eight years, the Taleban again?)
This is dithering; I've though Obama is taking far too long to come to some decision over this, but I can see both US civil and military strategies and tactics are far from unified, and, apparently, are in a mess. So perhaps he should have had more than eight meetings about it.
He's soon off for another fortnight; more fine speeches. But fine words butter no parsnips, end no wars, shore up no civil societies, and I doubt in consequence if any members of his various audiences in the next fortnight are really going to be doing any more than listen politely, applaud, and wonder why he bothered to come. I, as many others around the world did, hoped for more. But the U-turn on Israeli settlements disillusioned many, not least the US's favourite Palestinian politician, and it's been taken as a harbinger of other abnegations of political and diplomatic responsibility or influence (but many suspect, again, not military) to come.
"Find your own way of getting out of the mess we've -- at least partially --created because we're bored now" is not a policy that reassures anyone in restless and troubled regions of the world.
Complain about this comment
This is why is was a Hillary supporter,that attitude she showed in Africa,we be good right now.Can't blame Obama for wanting an exit strategy and of course Bush administration didn't plan for one when they went in,so now he has the trouble of trying to figure it out after years of GOP mismanagement and waste of resources and lost trust with the Afghan people,how does the rest of countries there figure in this does the other Allies have any suggestions,shouldn't this be a big round table discussion with many involved?
Complain about this comment
35:
Well, I give up, then.
It made no reference to any post, it referred readers to a memo written by (ex-General) Elkenberry six months ago, suggested that his and MacChrystal's positions were not so dissimilar except in so far (apparently) numbers are concerned, and made a comment or two on the difference between miltary and political (or 'civil') strategy.
I've had enough of this kind of absurdity. I have no idea what House Rule I could possibly have broken, and I am sick and tired of second-guessing the moderators.
So, I think I shall get on with other aspects of my life and leave this blog to those who prefer abuse, innuendo and insinuation about other contributors and public and political figures.
Complain about this comment
I think Obama is trying to be Kennedy-esque here. JFK rejected the initial options his advisors gave him at the beginning of the Cuban missile crisis. I also think Obama is looking for a way out sooner rather than later. He doesn't have the political stomach for a "surge" and I think raising the bar on the Afghani government regarding corruption is cover (like the US only discovered NOW that this government is corrupt lol!)to buy Obama time to put together plans for a phased but relatively quick withdrawal. Getting out of Afghanistan is popular not only with Democrats but independents as well and Obama needs a political boost. I think he'll choose quasi-permanent hit and run operations w/ drones and special forces against al-Qaida and Taliban targets which will disrupt any terrorist efforts they might want to make against Pakistan and the West, but will also leave the region (including the Pakistani border)in a chronic state of chaos.
Complain about this comment
6. At 07:29am on 12 Nov 2009, William wrote:
"Odd as it sounds, there is such a thing as purposeful dithering."
_________
So very true.
And not that many politicians have the self-confidence and patience to do it in the face of a public clamour for action.
Complain about this comment
And so, goodbye; I am resigning my BBC membership.
In future, if I have a comment to make perhaps it might be found on squirrelpost at the well known blog spot.
Complain about this comment
Ref 31, Magic
"These groups do not have wide support."
The only way a battalion size guerrilla can resist and inflict damage on a join force of over 100,000 US and NATO troops is with popular support. The people we talk to during the day are the same ones that shoot at our troops after sunset. The reason we destroy apartment buildings and houses full of civilians is because the people that resist our presence in Irag and Afghanistan live in those dwellings. In a nutshell, we are fighting people who do not want us in their country and who despise the values and interests we are trying to impose on them.
The only way to "win" in Afghanistan is to leave and limit our involvement to satellite surveillance and tactical strikes if Al Qaeda tries to re-establish their training camps.
Complain about this comment
"O tempero O mores"
That. dear moderators, is not a 'foreign language', it;s a dead one. And I do know how to spell even in Latin :-D
Complain about this comment
Mark wrote:
"President Obama is turning the screws on Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai, demanding that he gets serious about corruption, before the US comes up with any more troops."
________
Which, in the circumstances, seems to include at least
(1) removing the Governor of Kandahar Province, and
(2) resigning;
Or
Accept the appointment of a Nato High Representative (i.e., a Pro-Consul) with plenipotentiary powers, the role for which Paddy Ashdown was previously suggested, and which Karzai previously refused to do.
________
One way or the other, Karzai and his brother have got to be removed or sidelined before the US commits another soldier or another dollar to this struggle.
If that isn't done, then the only priority should be securing a clear line of supply to permit safe extraction of the NATO force. It can be done: consider the work at Gallipoli of Field Marshall Lord Julian Byng.
Complain about this comment
"Well, I give up, then."
Doesn't referred to moderators just mean that someone has hit the complain button?
Complain about this comment
4. Ted
9. Gavrielle
Ted:
The sponsorship "scandal" in Canada would not even count as static on the Afghan radar screen. Ironically, too, it brought down Paul Martin who was not responsible for it, and who had done an outstanding job putting federal finances in order. It is Paul Martin's legacy that has allowed Canada (so far, at least) to reach a relatively safe harbour in a storm.
As for governments in WWII postponing elections, that I don't know about. Mackenzie King won re-election in 1944 at the time of very serious internal divisions over the war effort, on the infamous platform of "conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription."
It was in WWI that the Borden-led Union government postponed elections until after the end of hostilities, a decision made in the shadow of the first conscription crisis. The introduction of conscription in 1917 over the adamant opposition of Quebec, following the Manitoba schools question, was a signal and highly divisive event in Canadian history.
This is the kind of history that you might expect Canadian schoolchildren ought to know by heart, but hardly any of them do.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
14 Gherkin
still as sour as ever.
"Unlike Bush, he looks at oppinion polls for every decision or if he can satisfy the base. that is good for a local Chicago politician but not for the President."
so now the complaint is he acts democratically.
you are consistently inconsistent.
What you suggest is at odds with previous statements that he is a dictator.
Are you just admitting you make rubbish up and are a total fraud. which position do you hold.
Is he the dictator you have claimed on numerous occasions or is he a president that looks to govern from the centre.
Which is exactly what he promised the rather simple minded american people.
Complain about this comment
President Obama is turning the screws on Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai, demanding that he gets serious about corruption, before the US comes up with any more troops.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
its USA's need to send more troops, not karzais..To make it a karzai war is the most pathetic attempt to distance from war..And people who accept a fraud winner as the leader doesnt really look good giving lectures to that person that he should do something about corruptions, On one hand obama encourages corrupt, as he supports karzai the cheat, and on the other hand he tells the cheat to end corruption. And with the threat, which karzai knows are just empty words...Obama will send the troops, but he is showing all this macho behavour to please his own people..
Complain about this comment
Y'all: cool your 24-hour news cycle jets. The President isn't one of those cowboy types who whips out his gun and shoots first; about whom all y'all in Europe spent 8 years complaining. He's a real adult with some intellectual chops who sees the long picture, as well as a Constitutional scholar who knows perfectly well how slowly our form of government works. He's not interested in sound bytes and he's not interested in adding to the deficit if he absolutely doesn't have to do it.
Dithering? NOT! Unwinding the damage of the previous administration's profligacy, violence and downright stupidity; shouldering the burdens of moving forward to solve some of the most difficult issues of our times takes some thoughtful planning and diplomacy, both intra-mural and extra-mural.
Complain about this comment
I'm amused that everyone seems to have missed that the Ambassador's secret cable was "leaked" just before the President was supposed to announce his decision. Not only does this leak give the President cover for more decision making time-it also signals that Sec. Gates, Gen. Petraus and Gen. McCrystal may all be on their way out the door. This does not bode well for the Afghanistan campaign.
Complain about this comment
A state of chaos which has its beginnings in the Russian invasion and the CIA manipulation which led to it....
The solution is very simple:
Buy the opium crop, giving the farmers a slightly better price than the curently receive from the warlords. Save incalculable blood and treasure, and the sad fact is that, all over the world, medical establishments are short of morphine...
Trouble is, there are too many folk in receipt of some of the vast opium revenues generated and inflated by the 'war on drugs' mantra, and they're not confined to Karzai & his mates. The war on drugs is a huge generator of jobs on both sides.
For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institutions, and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones."
-- Machiavelli, The Prince, (1513)
Complain about this comment
fluffytale #47: "rather simple minded american people"
Was that remark really necessary?
Complain about this comment
Thank goodness the large majority of these blog replies favour caution over the trigger-happy shooting from the hip that got the US into past messes, particularly Iraq. And let's salute a US Administration which can learn from past mistakes and see the inadvisability of making new ones just for a few cheap right-wing votes.
The US cannot decide alone - there are NATO allies to consult, especially those who already have troops on the ground and don't really want to sent out more without reason.
The more dithering=discussion, the better.
Complain about this comment
The Washington Post says Eikenberry's main concern is that the Afghan Government shows no sign of addressing the concerns that have been repeatedly raised with them, and that sending more troops would increase their dependence on the United States, rather than building up their own forces.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The building up of their own forces is an idea which came later on, not when they attacked afghanistan. Somehow in their zeal to invade, they really thought taliban were just a ragtag army which would be defeated, by the small number of Nato forces, by northern alliance, bombing from the air, and closing borders from pakistan...That they would appoint karzai,who would allow them to hunt freely for ben laden, and after capturing him, the only role of nato troops would be to police the country.Nothing was acheived, and they went after iraq, forgetting afghanistan...just like they forgot about it after ussr with drew, afghanistan became more lawless. And afghanistan became more lawless between 2003 and 2008 when americans focused on iraq..Now, americans are back to sqaure one,before 2001...Its not afghan's government's war, its america's war, karzai knows it, thats why he cheated in elections so openly..and thats why usa supported his fraud..This is american war, and they have to send more troops if they want to win..If they leave, karzai can find other people, from taliban to support him...So america has to eventually do what it does, get rid of one favourite guy and bring on his replacement..
Complain about this comment
ref #47
you are consistently inconsistent.
What you suggest is at odds with previous statements that he is a dictator.
Are you just admitting you make rubbish up and are a total fraud. which position do you hold.
Is he the dictator you have claimed on numerous occasions or is he a president that looks to govern from the centre.
Which is exactly what he promised the rather simple minded american people.
_____________-
As usual Fluff brain you are misinformed. Obama is Commander in Chief it his decision. But he refuses to make one. Bush a far wiser and courageous man did not look at polls but than again he wasn't concerned with winning the Nobel Prize or being on Time magazine's cover every month.
Complain about this comment
Oh come on now! It's Date Night with Michelle.
First things first.
Complain about this comment
"What do you think?"
I think I'll just wait to see how it turns out. There are always things going on behind the scenes that we don't know about, and some things which are ostensibly secret but which become public are intentionally leaked in an attempt to manipulate. Who knows?
Complain about this comment
That's a fine way to start off the commentary (in #1), badgering Mr. Mardell about what he is "supposed" to be doing.
I suppose that Mr. Mardell can write about whatever he pleases, in whatever way he pleases.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
"Is it a bluff or could the president really send far fewer troops than expected?"
It's not a bluff. I also don't think it's about troop levels at this point. This is more about defining an achievable goal. Our original goal was to dismantle a regime that gave safe haven to our enemies. Well, we did that, but the people who were in favor of that regime are still around, are not convinced that their way isn't the best way, and are too numerous to simply wipe off the face of the map. We have the means, but that would be a clear crime against humanity. There's also the non-extremist population of Afghanistan to consider. Do we owe them anything? We did upset the balance of powers in the region when we were trying to unseat the Soviets back in 80s. Make no mistake, that was a case of self-interest. We wanted payback for Vietnam, and we got it. Pulling out to a point where we simply have enough bases to disrupt anti-western militancy in the region is possible, but we leave the Afghans to the depravity of their old regime, and we'd be engaged in an endless war of attrition. Nobody wants that.
Indeed, what to do?
I criticize presidents only when I have some foggy notion of what I think they should do. Right now, I haven't a clue.
[Ref. 50: I had the same thought, although I'm not sure it's an indication that anyone's going to get fired. It does indicate that the Pentagon is divided as well. In light of that, caution is warranted, I think.]
Complain about this comment
44 tino .NO there has been and still are suspicious tendencies within the moderation team that has in the past sank this post to the depths of partisan bias.
Sometime it means complaints. but seeing as there are more zionist complaining than any other group they censor the debate to one side.
This resulted in multiple banning of posters. Gary keep trying to link me conclusively with jacksforge who was banned for life for several attempts in countering the bias at the BEEB.
'The right have a blog army of retired folk . we hear from them often.
Squirrelist.
Sorry to see you go.
Now the only regular left with any reason is IF and I'm not too keen on his version of "reasonable" so.
Solidarity.
This blog is in the BOG.
Time to flush
Complain about this comment
Buy the opium crop, giving the farmers a slightly better price than the curently receive from the warlords. Save incalculable blood and treasure, and the sad fact is that, all over the world, medical establishments are short of morphine...
Trouble is, there are too many folk in receipt of some of the vast opium revenues generated and inflated by the 'war on drugs' mantra, and they're not confined to Karzai & his mates. The war on drugs is a huge generator of jobs on both sides.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its a fact that opium was used to finace the mujaheedin against ussr with the encouragment of everyone including usa. since its a known known fact for cia, it has conviently blamed taliban for it now..the fact of the matter is when its trade was encouraged, lots of drug barons popped up in those areas, when taliban managed to bring its cultivation to its lowest ever done in the history of afghanistan, those drug barons became its worst rivals...they joined forces with the americans, and in return they were ignored and the cultivation started to thrieve again..
Complain about this comment
Funny thing tino.
Gary is right. I am jacksforge.
The once banned banned for life.
I spent a lot of time getting back on .
Many characters I went through.
from the Happylaze to the daisydiety and just a few more.
I had hoped Mark wouldn't let this turn into the monster it has.
Mr fiorn has sat by and basically said.
"look I hold israel to different standards because they are civilised"
So if he is the most reasonable and the most unbias observer here that so many think. There are too many non thinkers here.
He only attacks trolls on the muslim side.
BYE BYE.
Complain about this comment
Obama seems dithering or cautious on rather a lot of things. For example, allowing gays to serve openly in the military (campaign promise, not yet). Tough regulations on financial institutions (nope). Closing Guantanamo (will miss his own deadline). Getting out of Iraq? (Not that I see).
I realize all of this was pointed out in a very funny Saturday Night Live skit, but good political comedy usually has a basis in fact. As an independent (ie neither Republican or Democrat) I really cannot see why Republicans are so upset w/ this guy and Democrats still so in love with him.
Complain about this comment
It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more uncertain of success, nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new order of things.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
and people america fighting against, the pathans, respect those who plan that which is uncertain of success and then manages it and then solve it..
Complain about this comment
Spot on, Carolina Lass! (49)
Complain about this comment
55 LOOK will IF take on Gherkin for that pack of lies.
Bush acted like a dictator with no concern for the wants of the people . and Obama should learn to do the same.
But if he did "obama the totalitarian dictator"
P I'm with those that say dithering is better than rash decision.
enjoy your closet racism. enjoy your promotion of racist lies.
enjoy your double standards.
enjoy your hypocrisy.
Complain about this comment
"This is hardly what I'd call diplomatic. If I were Obama, I'd summon him to explain a) his comments and b) how they came to be public." (from Mark at #8)
It's rather naive to assume that Ambassador Eikenberry was responsible for the leak.
Complain about this comment
52 DAN why not?
I have heard all sorts of stuff about Islamics AlL sorts.
but americans can't handle simple?
when they behave like it.
There's that bias that infests this site.
Complain about this comment
Was that remark really necessary?"
Considering the fact of its truth, yes.
Complain about this comment
14. At 09:35am on 12 Nov 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
Obama has had enough time to make what ever decision he chooses.
And you would know, because you are a high ranking member of the Obama administration with top notch security clearance who sat in on the meetings. You've also seen all four of the different plans being proposed. And you know for a fact that these plans answer all the questions the President asked. You also know the President isn't entitled to have all the facts he wants, especially if he doesn't, in your opinion, need them.
It's amazing the quality of posters this blog attracts.
Apparently, you think President Obama doesn't deserve the same courtesy the nation gave President Bush - an inexperienced president who was facing a terrible national crisis in the first year of his first term. A man of dubious ethics, who bankrupted a Savings & Loan which his father, then President Bush, proceeded to bailout. A man whose idea of respecting the troops was to try and force their families to pay for flying the bodies of their loved ones home for burial. A man who figured we'd left thousands of corpses rotting in European soil (at a time when it wasn't feasible to fly the bodies home or refrigeration on ships didn't exist) so why not do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan? A man who privately suggested that we re-institute the draft and lower the enlistment age to 16 yrs. (George often forgets that Secret Service agents aren't servants who pretend to hear nothing, see nothing and say nothing to their friends.) A man whose work ethic was so dodgy he spent more time on vacation than any other President in history - a truly noble distinction - and wanted his briefing books to be as thin as possible because he didn't like reading.
And this is the man you want to compare to Barrack Obama. A man who didn't have the luxury of a rich daddy so he wasn't a "legacy" student at Yale, but got himself into Harvard on his own merits. A man who worked among the people in their communities - and not with bankers and oil sheiks. A man who never needed to learn how the other half lives, because he is part of the other half.
Now, understand me, Magic. I'm not saying Obama is perfect. I'm not saying he has all the answers. I'm not saying Obama is squeaky clean. What I'm saying is that you have a double standard and a selective memory.
Complain about this comment
Well said, Gavrielle!
Complain about this comment
Why does obama not want to send more troops, its something that doesnt fit with his other belief that he shares with his people, that the war is neccessary to make america safe.. the threat to american safety is being grossly magnified, otherwise, the troops sending wouldnt even be a question up for debate..
Complain about this comment
ref #41
The only way a battalion size guerrilla can resist and inflict damage on a join force of over 100,000 US and NATO troops is with popular support. The people we talk to during the day are the same ones that shoot at our troops after sunset. The reason we destroy apartment buildings and houses full of civilians is because the people that resist our presence in Irag and Afghanistan live in those dwellings. In a nutshell, we are fighting people who do not want us in their country and who despise the values and interests we are trying to impose on them.
The only way to "win" in Afghanistan is to leave and limit our involvement to satellite surveillance and tactical strikes if Al Qaeda tries to re-establish their training camps.
_____________________--
By your analogy the terrorists in Iraq had wide support; the surge proved it wrong. Except for privilidge bathists more of thew Iraqis support the goverment. they may want the forces out but in a choice they support the forcers over the terrorist.
Complain about this comment
"look I hold israel to different standards because they are civilised""
Supposed to be civilised, but the evidence argues differently.
Complain about this comment
ref #70
Bush was challenged during the elction and the first day on his qualifications. He did not get the free ride Obama did.
BTW I questioned ambulance chaser John Edwards resume as well.
Obama's resume
2 years in the State Senate
2 year in the U.S senate 9 no major legislation passed or sponsered)
Bush inexperienced yes but 2 term Gov of Texas.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 47, fluffytale:
"Which is exactly what he promised the rather simple minded american people."
What's your point? That we were duped? That only a simple minded people would want to be ruled from the center? What would a complex minded (if you like) people have done differently?
Complain about this comment
54. At 3:54pm on 12 Nov 2009, colonelartist wrote:
The building up of their own forces is an idea which came later on, not when they attacked afghanistan.
Perhaps, but then none of this would ever have happened if the Taliban had simply turned over bin Laden for trial to the people he had injured. They claimed it would be like breaking a tenet of Islam to do so. Like breaking a tenet of Islam - but not actually breaking one.
Bin Laden was a guest of one particular group of Afghans, not every tribe in the whole of the country. So the Taliban knowingly chose to have a war with America. They brought this down on the heads of their own people, because they didn't care how many of their own people died. So much the better to prove to people like you that America is evil.
The truth is, America has fought this war with one hand tied behind its back. You like to talk a lot about how we used nuclear bombs on Japan. Well, in the days after 9/11, trust me when I tell you that Afghanistan was a candidate for a nuclear attack by the angry mobs. Instead, we chose not to destroy an entire nation because of the intransigence of one small group of fanatics. In fact, in the weeks before the war our soldiers dropped supplies of food and medicine into various areas of the country. Food, by the way, that came from their own personal rations. American soldiers didn't eat, so that Pashtun children who were starving could.
So now, what would you have us do? Pull out immediately? Leave the people who want schools, who want an end to the warlords and the Taliban, who want security and elections, to the tender mercies of the same people who denied them these things before? What would satisfy you? You have a lot of opinions on what the West shouldn't do. Why don't you ever tell us what you think we ought to do? What is your plan? What do you want to be done? Tell us, how should we end this thing? And whom do you imagine is going to help the country get back on its collective feet after 30 years of agony if not the West? The oil rich Saudis? I don't think so. They recognized and supported the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan in 1996. In fact, they were the only country in the world who did.
And the people were the worse for it. Women whose husbands had died were no longer allowed to work to feed themselves or their families. Female doctors were not allowed to see their female patients. The schools for women were closed. Those who had no families to help them, or who were in equally bad circumstances suffered tremendously. Is this what you think the people of Afghanistan deserve? A class of starving, helpless, uneducated women and children at the mercy of whomever comes along? I hope not. I know too many American Pashtun to wish that on the people and country they so rightly love.
Complain about this comment
#67 GH1618
It's rather naive to assume that Ambassador Eikenberry was responsible for the leak.
Indeed. Whenever I see leaks of this kind I get the impression that there is a major spilt at the top of the political establishment. This leak was deliberately orchestrated by someone close to the White House with access to the Ambassador's comments. But with who's tactic approval?
Complain about this comment
66. At 4:19pm on 12 Nov 2009, fluffytale wrote:
"55 LOOK will IF take on Gherkin for that pack of lies."
________
Fluffy:
I actually didn't even read 55 until I saw your post at 66. I usually just skip over them.
Look, I used to take on Marcus every other day. So did Sam, even more so. I got tired of it. Sam must have tired of it too. He no longer posts here, which is a shame.
I stopped responding to Marcus months ago, because it simply encouraged him. As you may recall it was the incessant inflammatory and abusive posting of Marcus (and, to be fair, Magic) that prompted people to migrate to the now defunct institution of "the kitchen".
With notable exceptions, Marcus has generally been far less abrasive and rather more thoughtful in his recent posts, so maybe avoiding feeding the trolls is a good strategy. Maybe it is also the right approach to dealing with our most recent troll.
There isn't any point prodding Magic with a stick. The posting at 55 is plainly ridiculous. Gavrielle has just finished wood-shedding Magic on the topic. You already know my views on the lack of qualifications of Junior Bush. Others here, including Magic, have taken offense at those views. Predictably.
So what is left to be said on that subject?
Complain about this comment
By your analogy the terrorists in Iraq had wide support; the surge proved it wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
the surge had nothing to do with it..Go back and try to find out how many times this surgent soldiers ever had any battle with the insurgents...the militia, the bathiests whom bush finally had to get help, and the walling out different neighbourhoods was the reason. Obama hopes to achieve the same thing in afghanistan through pakistani army, the black water target killings in pakistan..then he will send some token soldiers when things are under control, and give credit to his few token surgical soldiers.
Complain about this comment
Bush inexperienced yes but 2 term Gov of Texas.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
somehow people tend to believe that president of usa works all by himself..He has whole lot of ministers and advisors around him...These people according to perception, are supposed to be the best in their fields...thats why they are paid well and perked extremely well..
Complain about this comment
Obama has had enough time to make what ever decision he chooses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many times I have to repeat that obama is waiting for pakistani military to complete its mission in south waziristan...He has to see that military has killed and subduded taliban before he sends more of his troops so that they dont get killed..
Complain about this comment
#40 Squirrellist
Sorry to see you go. More sorry news here on squirrel front. I don't think it would have been news if he was black.
;-)
Complain about this comment
46. At 3:22pm on 12 Nov 2009, "This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules."
________
You know, there was a time when a reasonable level of education was a requirement for employment at the BBC.
Here they have deleted a small pun, in Latin, that I posted in support of Squirrel.
It started with the well known phrase supposedly uttered by Caesar as he crossed the rubicon "Alea jacta est", which is most often translated as "The die is cast", but could have the flavour of "everything is risked on one throw."
By adding a single letter to the verb, the meaning can be changed to "everything is thrown out", or, in essence, "everything is rejected".
There was a time when every school child in England was familiar with this phrase, and might have been expected to have understood the pun. But apparently not the moderators here. Yet another pothole on the long road of inglorious decline ...
Complain about this comment
What's your point? That we were duped? That only a simple minded people would want to be ruled from the center? What would a complex minded (if you like) people have done differently?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The complex minded people would difnately not limited the "simple minded people" into three categories..there are many other ways in which simple minded people behave and think,willingless to believe in whatever presented...is one common example of simple mindedness..not learning from past expearnices and lies..is the second one..
Complain about this comment
Quite the reverse. We are getting what we asked (& voted) for.
If I may be so bold as to suggest that by asking as you do, you underline the point.
Complain about this comment
#74 Lord Nathan
Indeed, me Lordship!
Them is just another bunch of colonialising Europeans!!
Complain about this comment
Forget the soldiers or the surge or obama...I want to know something, and I want to know it now because it has started to irriate me, up untill now it used to entertain me...
Whats this with americans,who post anywhere on the internet. whenever they see someone saying something which they dont agree with, they take on the role of "better than you", and blaming them for bad standard of the blog, or the board and threaten to leave... I want a sincere answer, because I genuinely think that its very childish approach of "if you dont play by my rules, I will leave"..and then they leave in a manner as if the world would fall at their departure..They write so many posts complaining how such people derail the topic, spam, that they dont even realise that they are the biggest contributers of both derailing and spaming..Answer me. and Answer me quickly, because its the first and last time I wll ask this..And just answer in one post,no need for anyone to reply to the posts which have the answer..
Complain about this comment
IF I note you feed trolls that make Islam look bad but won't feed the trolls that would make america and Isreal look bad.
That is interesting.
but not indicative of any bias?
(PS I know you are canuk not american)
you can fool some people.
Complain about this comment
84
You think that is bad. Wow. you have stuck your head in the sand for some time now.
Complain about this comment
Dceiler.
That is sad news.
as is the difficulty of finding the red squirrel party on line.
Complain about this comment
86 Thanks lord.
and yep.
they do so often.
then complain when someone mentions it.
I used to try to give comprehension lessons here to americans. see they think their individual thoughts are what matters. as opposed to the meanings of word.
Given a clear post saying" A is pink" they will say " I see you agree that A is blue"
Somehow that spirit of individuality carries through to the interpretation of the English language.
I can't understand why I suppose it is an individual interpretation of what language means .
Complain about this comment
Deliberation is good in its place, and certainly necessary when human lives are at stake. But once the facts are in, and a leader still does not make a decision, that extended deliberation can legitimately be called dithering.
Whether or not the decision should be to withdraw or stay in Afghanistan, a decision needs to be made without undue delay. Soldiers are dying in the meantime, and their comrades must be asking, "Are we fighting in a war that is to be abandoned?" Surely very demoralizing.
How long will it take to eliminate corruption in Afghanistan? Surely at least years; which means soldiers will be fighting for years without knowing what the aim of the conflict for their own countries is.
I must thank the fellow-reader for giving examples of the suspension of democratic elections in Western countries during war. And a suspension of elections decided on by the parties in power is still a suspension of democracy.
Complain about this comment
There is something perhaps even more interesting, and inmportant, than the current decision on the additional troops to Afghanistan – the resurgence of civilian control over the US military. Under the W. Bush presidency the military had nearly all the power, now that is no longer true.
In my opinion this will engage the American public in the issues of the war in a powerful way not yet seen with the engagement in Afghanistan.
Complain about this comment
How long will it take to eliminate corruption in Afghanistan? Surely at least years; which means soldiers will be fighting for years without knowing what the aim of the conflict for their own countries is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its racist to keep on saying that there is corruption in afghanistan because, its the americans who encouraged this corruption when they brought karzai..they knew his background, they knew that as a corrupt person he would williingly do what he is told..Your questions should be why your governments chooses and chosed to support this corrupt person..there must be something that your government is acheiving and acheived when it picked karzai..
Complain about this comment
77 & 78 have got a sleeping Mod.
Complain about this comment
ref #88
You seem to paint Americans with one brush.
But in answer ot your question/accusation when someone ignores fact like that Ilsamic terrorism is a threat. That Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist orginizatins. That there was no justifcation for the Mumbai bombing. Yes we are going to question your sense of reailty.
Complain about this comment
I think that Eikenberry is right on the money. Ever since Karzai hired his all-foreign bodyguard force and started wearing his chapan draped over his shoulders like a model, I have been apprehensive that he is there primarily as an American figurehead. There is also so little positive to date on the training and readiness of the Afghan Army and police that it is hard to see when we are ever going to be able to safely withdraw. As a great admirer of the Afghan people since my initial visit in 1955, I hesitate to say anything that would detract from our support of their fledgling efforts toward the adoption of democratic ways, but the level of known corruption is so high that there must be more solid proof that Karzai is actually going to implement some reform actions that are acceptable to those who are pouring so many resources into his country. There has to be something more than 'photo ops'! And I'm glad our President is exercising what I consider to be the utmost caution in putting more American lives into what could easily be a bottomless pit.
Complain about this comment
77 & 78 have got a sleeping Mod.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont think there are some humans who actually read the posts, otherwise they would have corrected my grammer and spellings mistakes before allowing it to be posted.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 88, colonelartist:
"Whats this with americans,who post anywhere on the internet..."
Americans are as a rule a provincial lot, so it follows that those that post on this forum are a pretty unusual. I think it best not to tar us all Americans with the same brush. Some certainly have sizable chips on their shoulders, but it's also true that an equal number of British posters seem to have a good deal fun knocking them off. The two groups are pretty much of the same ilk in my opinion. They act as foils for each other. I think in an odd way they have a rather happy relationship.
The sad fact is that really no one shows any interest in what they have to say anywhere else. This forum serves as an outlet for them... and you and me, too.
Complain about this comment
You seem to paint Americans with one brush.
But in answer ot your question/accusation when someone ignores fact like that Ilsamic terrorism is a threat. That Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist orginizatins. That there was no justifcation for the Mumbai bombing. Yes we are going to question your sense of reailty.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the question I had asked , the americans are to be painted with the same brush..they show the same tendency...And genius, you never answered my question.I seldom ask questions, because usually I understand things quicker,and need not double check by asking any questions, but when I ask a question, I also demand an answer..to confirm or unconfirm about my personal hypothesis
Complain about this comment
Gherkin. You are witless aren't you.
Yep that comment from me tarred a few with the same brush.
BUT YOU HAVE SAID THAT'S OK.
I fight fire with fire..
If you don't like it americans then stop engaging in it yourselves.
Any post is drawn into your" hate Islam" posts ,By your a I mean many of the American and English posters left and right.
but mostly right.
At least I am just calling shouting names not trying to suggest you be persecuted. As you do .
When I stop seeing you guys starting every thread with the islamobash then I will leave off the mericans.
(dude I'm one)
Complain about this comment
Ref 75, Magic
"Bush inexperienced yes but 2 term Gov of Texas."
Aside from a record of summary executions, can you think of anything positive he did or learned from this experience?
Complain about this comment
but the level of known corruption is so high that there must be more solid proof that Karzai is actually going to implement some reform actions that are acceptable to those who are pouring so many resources into his country. There has to be something more than 'photo ops'! And I'm glad our President is exercising what I consider to be the utmost caution in putting more American lives into what could easily be a bottomless pit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you can call yourself a real genius, because what you have decoded is what no one else would have even imgaine..karzai is elected because of election fraud, obama supports him, but supporting a fraud winner is something which americans dont think they like..so, obama is giving karzai the orders to take care of the corruption..Americans will not even come close to ever questioning american support to corrupt election result...Its like taking an over weight child to mcdonalds and then telling him that he wouldnt be given any burgers because its bad for his health,and then you leave him there, while you go off serching for a new girl friend.
Complain about this comment
88 colonel I find you to be a little annoying as well, but so am I.
either way If I were to leave it would be because the rampant islamophobia that has been so prevalent on this thread has sickened me.
Not that I couldn't come up with some reasons for dispute between us but I heard that passage about taking the plank out of my eye before helping others to remove theirs.
That is why I concentrate on those from the west that have exactly the attitude you describe.
One that says. We are better, our rights are more important, and others can be damned if they disagree. even if they do so from their own land.
they claim others are the radicals because they moderate their language, and use crafty insults about swine.
Complain about this comment
Aside from a record of summary executions, can you think of anything positive he did or learned from this experience?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has anyone asked him? he was against sending limitless drones to pakistan, as he correctly saw, that it would increase to destablize pakistan and that would create another problem in the region..Obama did not think and sends limitless drones, which has, led to war inside pakistan.
Complain about this comment
ref #101/102/103
I am going to disregard the typical name calling and assume that since neither of you can answer arguments you know in your tiny minds that you are wrong.
#103
If I understand your comment is what did Bush's two terms give him:
1. Executive expereince which means making decisions promptly
2. That the bucks stop with the President(Obama still blaming Bush)
3. To work with the other side without demonizing opponents. Despite all the slander from MSNBC did Bush ever call out Obermann or Maddow?
Complain about this comment
Ref 59, AndyPost
"I also don't think it's about troop levels at this point"
What is evident from all the high level meetings that are taking place on this issue is that President Obama is not neglecting Afghanistan the way his predecessor did after the initial invasion of that country.
I suspect a decision has already been made and troop levels will be increased, temporarily and conditional on tangible contributions by the Afghan government, but I doubt Gen. McChrystal will get the 40,000 troops he asked for.
What I believe is desperately needed is a clear strategy and a set of achievable objectives to justify the human and economic sacrifices we are making and the destruction of a Third World country.
"Liberating" people by killing them or destroying their property and way of life is an unacceptable excuse for what has been taking place in that poor country during the last 8 years.
Complain about this comment
#96 Lord Nathan
Yes, the mods are sleeping on the job. I don't know what they're playing at. Could you table a motion in the House decrying their sloppiness and demand that measures are taken to prevent such a travesty ever happening again?
Complain about this comment
75. At 5:06pm on 12 Nov 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
Bush was challenged during the elction and the first day on his qualifications. He did not get the free ride Obama did.
Elections are for challenging candidates qualifications. That's why we don't have an hereditary kingship. And what free ride was that? Even before Obama was inaugurated people were complaining he hadn't done anything about the banking crisis. Once again, a double standard and a selective memory.
BTW I questioned ambulance chaser John Edwards resume as well.
Bravo. So did everyone else. That's what elections cycles are for.
Obama's resume
2 years in the State Senate
2 year in the U.S senate 9 no major legislation passed or sponsered)
Bush inexperienced yes but 2 term Gov of Texas.
That would be 8 years in the state legislature and four as a US senator. Some people actually keep working when they are campaigning. As for Bush being a two term Governor of Texas, I take it you are not aware that the constitution of Texas gives the Lieutenant Governor more power than the actual Governor. Bizarre, but true. Old Georgie was more of a figure head. So much so that when he met President Clinton in the White House after the election he actually asked, "How do you do this job?" Bill Clinton's response was that he was sure Dubya would have lots of advisers - who'd be able to figure that out for him.
Complain about this comment
Ref 73, Magic
"By your analogy the terrorists in Iraq had wide support; the surge proved it wrong. Except for privilidge bathists more of thew Iraqis support the goverment. they may want the forces out but in a choice they support the forcers over the terrorist."
The effect of our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan are quite different and were influenced by very different factors. The so-called "terrorists" in Iraq were mostly disaffected Baathists fighting the Shiites that we put in power after we overthrew the Saddam Hussein regime. In that disastrous crusade we sided with an Islamic faction aligned spiritually to Iran against their struggle with an Islamic faction aligned spiritually to Saudi Arabia. The de-facto civil war in Iraq was precipitated by our decision to remove Hussein from power and by the political and internal security vaccuum created by that decision.
In Afghanistan we are fighting warlords and tribes with widely different interests, except for one, they all want us out of their country. That is the reason the Taleban is so resourceful and effective. successful.
Complain about this comment
89. Fluffy.
I try not to feed trolls, whatever their stripe.
Last year we had more trolls on one end of things, this year we have a different kind of infestation. Do you remember the evolution strings? We had trolls there, too. Do you remember JohnAAA? We never figured out if he was one person or three, and some of us suspected he was a paid shill.
Everybody is entitled to their viewpoint. But I have an issue with abusive inflammatory, high volume postings that do not advance rational discussion, that do not respond to the postings of others, that repeat rehearsed talking-points over and over, that crib scripted language from talk-radio, and so on. That is the behaviour of a troll. It is what drives good people away from the blog. I and others here have sometimes had the impression that some of these trolls have been paid to monitor this site and spew their propaganda at all times and in all places.
For quite a while I thought Magic was probably one of them, but I eventually concluded he wasn't. (Before you ask how I came to that conclusion, just think about it for a bit. Then you won't have to ask).
What is high volume? Well, when a quarter or more of the postings on a blog are from one poster, they number in the dozens over a short period of time, and they are merely inflammatory, you've got a troll infestation problem for sure. I suspect the threshold doesn't even have to be that high. 10%?
Complain about this comment
The only question is: Will Obama be as poor a President for US interests as Carter?
Complain about this comment
#99. colonelartist: "I dont think there are some humans who actually read the posts, otherwise they would have corrected my grammer and spellings mistakes before allowing it to be posted."
Wrong on this as with so much of what you post. Doesn't your computer have a spell-check to correct your mistakes, or are you like the former (and reformed) Jacksforge who managed to mis-spell every third word deliberately in order to create an interesting personality?
Complain about this comment
#107. MagicKirin: "If I understand your comment is what did Bush's two terms give him:
1. Executive expereince which means making decisions promptly"
No, executive decisions should be made with due deliberation, not hastily and incorrectly. Remember Mr Bush's "Mission Accomplished"?
Complain about this comment
Wrong on this as with so much of what you post. Doesn't your computer have a spell-check to correct your mistakes, or are you like the former (and reformed) Jacksforge who managed to mis-spell every third word deliberately in order to create an interesting personality?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I just believe that mods should check spellings and gramer mistakes.And before you accuse me of creating an interesting personality, I would like to warn you that it was something i was accused of in other messageboard..and I didnt like it..I am completely at ease with the personality I have..And one of the trait of my personality is that i dont spell check..other people do it for me..So i just somehow expect the mods to do it..I wouldnt mind at all, I would appreciate it..
Complain about this comment
ref #112
Everybody is entitled to their viewpoint. But I have an issue with abusive inflammatory, high volume postings that do not advance rational discussion, that do not respond to the postings of others, that repeat rehearsed talking-points over and over, that crib scripted language from talk-radio, and so on.
__________________--
Then stop listening to Randi Rose and Ed shultz and you might have a useful contribution.
Complain about this comment
ref #110
That would be 8 years in the state legislature and four as a US senator. Some people actually keep working when they are campaigning.
______________---
But Obama wasn't one of them. Tell his major legislative accomplishments in the U.S Senate?
Complain about this comment
Will Obama be as poor a President for US interests as Carter?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
What did Carter do against american interests? He made two things possible, without him, you would not have Iran as your enemy,and without that saddam wouldnt have been what saddam became and without that bush sr would not have gone to war in 90s and bush jr in 2003, second thing; carter laid the foundation of soviet occupation, without it, soviet wouldnt have occupied, mujahedin wouldnt have fought back, without this the northern alliance wouldnt have created havoc, without this taliban wouldnt have come to power, without this ben laden wouldnt have come to afghanistan, without this 9/11 episode wouldnt have happened, without this, usa wouldnt have invaded afghanistan, without this, karzai wouldnt have become the leader, without this, obama wouldnt have to think about surge increase..
Complain about this comment
115. At 8:09pm on 12 Nov 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
No, executive decisions should be made with due deliberation, not hastily and incorrectly. Remember Mr Bush's "Mission Accomplished"?
Thank you for saying what I was thinking. The "prompt" decision isn't necessarily the right one. Sometimes, you actually have to wait for all the information to be received, sorted and processed before making a decision.
Complain about this comment
116. At 8:11pm on 12 Nov 2009, colonelartist wrote:
I just believe that mods should check spellings and gramer mistakes.
The mods are not your servants.
Complain about this comment
121. At 8:24pm on 12 Nov 2009, Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote:
"The mods are not your servants."
_______
Well, judging by some of the postings they have allowed to stand, I have come to wonder.
Complain about this comment
115. DC
LOL.
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner (#112) "I try not to feed trolls, whatever their stripe." ... "I suspect the threshold doesn't even have to be that high. 10%?"
The irony is, that at the time you posted that remark, 10% of the posts in the current thread had been made by the contributor you were feeding.
Complain about this comment
#116 Colonel
I just believe that mods should check spellings and gramer mistakes.
I don't pay my licence fee for the BBC to correct people's spelling! Especially yours and Majik's!! I'll pay for them to correct Fluffy's though.
;-)
Complain about this comment
"fluffytale #47: "rather simple minded american people"
Dan: "Was that remark really necessary?"
fluffytale: "Considering the fact of its truth, yes."
Well, I guess as a majority of voters actually did pull the lever for a novice like Obama, your point is well-taken.
Complain about this comment
squirrelists's post #35 was restored by the mods, and turns out that it was just a routine case of "[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]". All that high dudgeon in post #37 over nothing, really.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 108, Dominick:
"I suspect a decision has already been made and troop levels will be increased..."
Rick Sanchez on his show on CNN just made the observation that he thought it odd that three major newspapers all reported the same supposed leak exactly the same way on the same day.
"I've been in this business long enough to know a trial balloon, and, folks, that's a trial balloon."
He's got a point, don't you think? A well-respected general and ambassador who obviously knows a lot about Afghanistan publicly coming out against a troop increase. Remember earlier this autumn when McCrystal was upbraided by the White House for making public his opinions on what options he thought the U.S. should take? I haven't heard anything like that this time. I suppose you could argue that the Diplomatic Corps is a different animal than the military, but it strikes me that Eikenberry isn't being terribly diplomatic. I don't have a read on this myself, but I can't help but wonder. Mark's suspicion that this a bluff to get Karzai to act is reasonable. I think this is more about the U.S. people.
"'Liberating' people by killing them or destroying their property and way of life is an unacceptable excuse for what has been taking place in that poor country during the last 8 years."
It's hard to disagree with that. My only comment would be that it has been going on for more than eight years.
The problem is that in Afghanistan (and Iraq) we're holding down the lid on two civil wars that would result in many times the casualties that we're inflicting today. Yes, we've killed a lot of people, many of them innocent, but our attacks are so targeted that we've actually been excused of extra-judicial executions by the U.N. That's a whole lot different sort of occupation than what the world has known to this point. In Vietnam we were using B-52s to carpet bomb populated areas. I also doubt we've filled any mass graves with machine gunned bodies (of course, I didn't think we'd resort to torture either). I'm fairly sure that if NATO leaves, there will be. Are we responsible for what happens if we leave?
Yeah, maybe.
Complain about this comment
"Is it a bluff or could the president really send far fewer troops than expected? Sensible caution or more dithering? What do you think?" Thanks for asking, this should be the obvious way to approach these questions in a democracy. Sadly, no one in positions of power in Amerika's one-party/two-faces government cares what the people think, so that's a big part of the problem in itself.
""But again the core of the objection is about refusing to send more troops unless there is a clear exit strategy, and a responsible Afghan partner"...nothing much indeed, about all the harm the U.S. has done in Afghanistan already, or why there are as many troops there now, let alone any more.
"So a warning to Hamid Karzai to shape up. But is the administration just sending a message, or is it really still in agonies about which direction to take?" The administration may be in agonies about which direction to take - to kill more innocent peasants themselves or let Karzai's or some other puppett government do it for them - but it's certainly not in any agonies about Amerika's right to rule Afghanistan and wherever else it pleases, one way or another.
Complain about this comment
118. At 8:17pm on 12 Nov 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
But Obama wasn't one of them.
And you would know, because you were his personal assistant and followed him everywhere keeping a record of his activities. So you can swear to us that no paperwork was ever sent to him by his staff in Washington or Illinois. None of his memos, briefs or dictation ever made it out of his head and into a Dictaphone. And you never typed up any of his documents, copied, filed or forwarded them to the appropriate parties. Nice work if you can get it, Magic.
Tell his major legislative accomplishments in the U.S Senate?
Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act
Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act
Secure Fence Act
Lugar-Obama Bill
Coburn-Obama Transparency Act
Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act
Honest Leadership and Open Government Act
Iraq War De-Escalation Act
Defense Authorization Act
Iran Sanctions Enabling Act
State-Foreign Operations Appropriations bill
Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007
State Children's Health Insurance Program - Ammendment to provide protection for Family members caring for wounded soldiers.
Complain about this comment
122. At 8:34pm on 12 Nov 2009, Interestedforeigner wrote:
Well, judging by some of the postings they have allowed to stand, I have come to wonder.
Hmmm. Considering that my post (#77) is still "awaiting moderation" and it contained hard questions for our resident troll, I also am beginning to wonder...
Complain about this comment
#131 Gavrielle
My post at 78 was a ripping yarn - my best yet.
I blame the Belgians!
Complain about this comment
Post 1 of 2.
On the question of troop numbers, compare to other conflicts:
1991, Iraq, with a population of 24 million, around 550,000 troops were sent.
2003, Iraq, severely weakened after 12 years of sanctions and no-fly zones, 300,000 troops were sent.
Afghanistan, with a population of more than 32 million and a far more difficult terrain, only around 30,000 troops were sent originally.
Even now, it is only just approaching 100,000 troops; a long way short of the 300,000 sent to Iraq six years ago. Ex-military commentators have suggested troop-to-population ratios for counter-insurgency operations should be around 1:50. That would mean 640,000 troops should be in Afghanistan, which, given its population, seems broadly in line with other conflicts. Granted, Afghanistan did not have an air force, no tanks, nor a professional army, but a guerilla/counter-insurgency operation requires more troops on the ground.
Even in Northern Ireland, from memory (and someone please correct if I'm wrong) Britain had around 25,000 troops to deal with an estimated 500 IRA members in a population of 1.7 million.
So to 'win' in Afghanistan, troop numbers would need to be increased significantly for a sustained period over several years. But, eight years into the conflict, is that acceptable to the American public? It would be a huge gamble on Obama's part, and take him into the next election campaigning period, probably against a background of higher US casualties. The opposite action would be to withdraw, but that won't be without its critics, and the first terrorist attack on American soil would sink Obama's chances of a second term. Which leaves a sort of status quo option; keeping things the same, maybe with 20-30,000 extra troops. But that won't solve the conflict, it simply makes it never-ending, though politically, is probably the safest choice.
If he can't take the risk of a massive troop increase, nor the risk of associated with withdrawal, what should he do? One answer is to change the risk; and that means changing public opinion. (If you're not bored, see next post 2/2).
Complain about this comment
but our attacks are so targeted that we've actually been excused of extra-judicial executions by the U.N.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you are not, like israel, you too refuse to be held resonsible for such executions, the UN has questioned you on this, and you have refused to answer, so far.So dont try to make up facts or fictions.
Complain about this comment
132. At 9:19pm on 12 Nov 2009, dceilar wrote:
I blame the Belgians
Darn Belgians! Them and their yummy chocolates and tasty waffles! ::shakes fist::
Complain about this comment
#34 At 2:03pm on 12 Nov 2009, WCoastConservative wrote:
"No, Obama's not dithering, he's just figuring out a reasonable objective, which is why he's resisting the generals' calls for 30k or 40k troops. As Clausowitz noted in his seminal work On War, every war needs to have a political objective. He was a great German general who was given the high honor of making a war plan against France (before WWI), but refused. Why? Because he kept on asking what the objective of the war was and the high command simply said, "To beat France."
Clauswitz was a Prussian officer who died in 1831--well before WWI. And as it turned out, the Prussian war plan against France in 1870-71 was executed in an almost flawless manner. French armies were effectively defeated in less than six weeks, Napoleon III was made a Prussian prisoner, and King Wilhelm became Emperor Wilhelm I of a united Germany. The Germans accomplished all of their major political and military objectives relatively easily. So Clauswitz may not be the best example for the point you want to make.
Complain about this comment
124. At 8:36pm on 12 Nov 2009, GH1618 wrote:
"The irony is, that at the time you posted that remark, 10% of the posts in the current thread had been made by the contributor you were feeding."
_______
Yeah, but he has a good heart and isn't badly intentioned.
_______
Must do better.
Must try harder.
Complain about this comment
Clauswitz was a Prussian officer who died in 1831--well before WWI. And as it turned out, the Prussian war plan against France in 1870-71 was executed in an almost flawless manner. French armies were effectively defeated in less than six weeks, Napoleon III was made a Prussian prisoner, and King Wilhelm became Emperor Wilhelm I of a united Germany. The Germans accomplished all of their major political and military objectives relatively easily. So Clauswitz may not be the best example for the point you want to make.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
its because the germans didnt quickly less than half way through the war, put some weak courrupt man as the leader of france against Nepolean, Wilhelm defeated and proclaimed himself the leader of france and germany..In case of americans, they are not even half way through the war, and quickly set up a weak corrupt person as the leader...americans may like to say they are independent now, but when it comes to these things, they act exactly like their masters the brits..
Complain about this comment
Ref. 134, colonelartist:
"No, you are not..."
No, you are not what?
Complain about this comment
Richard_SM (#133) "Granted, Afghanistan did not have an air force, no tanks, ... "
Actually, the Taliban did have tanks, according to this report in Jane's.
Complain about this comment
135. At 9:28pm on 12 Nov 2009, Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote:
132. At 9:19pm on 12 Nov 2009, dceilar wrote:
"I blame the Belgians
Darn Belgians! Them and their yummy chocolates and tasty waffles! ::shakes fist::"
Hey! My wife is Belgian and my daughter is half-Belgian so leave the Belgies out of this one! Say what you want about Americans, but I draw the line on Belgians! Oh, and don't forget the great beer.
Complain about this comment
No, you are not what?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you are not excused of extra-judicial executions by the U.N.
Complain about this comment
Actually, the Taliban did have tanks, according to this report in Jane's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And did Jane also tell you how many and in what conditions? there condition was worse than those F-14 american planes which iran had during iran-iraq war..
Complain about this comment
Post 2 of 2 (continued from #133)
Mark Mardell wrote: "The US ambassador to Afghanistan has been even more forthright, sending a supposedly secret cable urging against further troop deployments."
“Supposedly secret cable.” The 'secret' cable, like the confidential McChrystal Strategy Report, have been leaked deliberately. Isn’t the leaking of a war planning document serious? Why aren't there investigations going on to find out who can't be trusted with top-secret documents? I suspect these 'leaks' are designed to shift and shape public opinion, to change Obama’s political risks. Same as the the news 'leaked' that Richard Holbrooke had a bust-up with Karzai in the summer. Holbrooke's not stupid. If he was going to 'blow his top' with Karzai, he would have done that on a one-to-one basis behind closed doors. No interpreters needed - Karzai speaks English. There's been a definite shifting of public perceptions in recent months, from one that US/NATO was running Afghanistan back in the spring - to the one now, that puts emphasis and responsibility on President Karzai and his government.
Obama is trying to shift public opinion, demonstrate how difficult the problem is, gain public empathy and pull-in US public support for whatever policy he chooses (actually chosen, because I'm sure they've made their decisions already). He has three choices: significant increase of troops; significant decrease of troops, or stay broadly the same. Its difficult to read which option will be revealed, but its clear to me Obama is endeavouring to create the climate where he can do a national TV address, or a series of TV appearances, in order to announce, explain and justify his decision.
Complain about this comment
ok, my question is , why on earth obama really wants to send more troops? its not as if situation has become impossible for the troops in afghanistan, that they need more troops..
Complain about this comment
#140. GH1618,
"Actually, the Taliban did have tanks, according to this report in Jane's.
Yes, they had a junkyard collection, but I'm sure they were 'taken out' in the initial aerial bombardment at the end of 2001. I'm sure you get the point in my sentence; the conflict requires a lot of troops on the ground.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 142, colonelartist:
http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2009/1/un_investigator_warns_us_on_us.html
Ok, the U.S. was merely "warned" that the use of drones "may" constitute extrajudicial executions.
We're not going to stop it, so we will be accused eventually. If not, it's only because other countries wish to preserve the right to do the same thing themselves.
Sec. Clinton responded to a questioner in Pakistan by saying, "We're fighting a war." The U.S. makes no claims that we're prosecuting crimes, at least not by western standards. We're killing people that we think want to kill us, plain and simple. We are indeed killing innocents in the process. I don't want war, but you can't always avoid it. In this case, it doesn't take two to Tango, you know?
Listen, I'm all in favor of a world where the rule of law is evenly applied everywhere, but we're not there, yet. I think we're making progress... slowly. At least now we see civilians as more than just "collateral damage". I would claim the U.S. (and NATO) has taken great pains to reduce civilian casualties, even to the point of increasing risk to our own soldiers. That's unheard of in history as far as I know.
Complain about this comment
#40. squirrellist: "And so, goodbye; I am resigning my BBC membership."
Don't do that, it means the trolls have won.
#116. colonelartist: "I just believe that mods should check spellings and gramer mistakes"
Why should they do your work for you? In most English speaking and writing nations, one's intelligence is frequently judged by the correctness (or not) of spelling and grammar. Bearing that in mind, most would deduce that yours and others similarly affected demonstrates a lack thereof.
"And before you accuse me of creating an interesting personality, I would like to warn you that it was something i was accused of in other messageboard"
Accuse you? It was a rhetorical question, not an accusation. As for 'warning' - what are you going to do? Hunt me down? I don't think you'd be able to find my house.
"I am completely at ease with the personality I have."
Glad to know it, since I can't think that others feel the same way. No doubt your mother loves you . . .
"And one of the trait of my personality is that i dont spell check..other people do it for me."
I can only assume that you have a very old computer since mine and most others here have machines which flag every mis-spelt word and can replace it with the click of the mouse: (_*_)
Complain about this comment
141. At 9:45pm on 12 Nov 2009, Dan wrote:
Hey! My wife is Belgian and my daughter is half-Belgian so leave the Belgies out of this one!
Okay, let's pick on Monaco. They're tiny and inoffensive.
Darn Monagasques! Them and their fabulous beaches and swanky gambling palaces!
Not sure it has the same ring to it, but okay.
Complain about this comment
Ref 128, AndyPost
"I suppose you could argue that the Diplomatic Corps is a different animal than the military, but it strikes me that Eikenberry isn't being terribly diplomatic."
Ambassadorships are often given to key political contributors after a successful presidential campaign. Career diplomats seldom make statements like Eikenberry's, and high ranking military officers seldom do as well, which make McChrystal's and Eikenberry's public statements a little suspicious.
Complain about this comment
Obama does not like the military and sees little need for it. It soaks up billions of dollars that he would rather use to promote his social agenda. He does not want to send any troops and his loyal followers want that decision. Tha ambassador came out with his opinion as planned. You really think that after three months of dithering that this ambassador's statement was not planned? He's probably got a promise for a much better post in the near future for his comment. Obama is being advised he needs to send some troops or risk alienating even more of the people he needs for reelection even though it will upset the the Obama cult members. They will vote for him regardless and Obama needs to stop losing the support of independents which he is losing in droves due to his drive toward socialism. Unfortunately, American soldiers are dying and need support now and his dithering is maddening. I would advise him not to send more troops and order the troops home. Not because I feel the mission over there is pointless, after all when we anandoned them in the 1980s it resulted in the Taliban taking over and 9-11 but since he is incapaable of leading, our boys are safer here. Perhaps in 2012 we will get rid of this idiot and get a real leader. Until then we will have to hope the terrorist will not set up shop again.
Complain about this comment
Why should they do your work for you? In most English speaking and writing nations, one's intelligence is frequently judged by the correctness (or not) of spelling and grammar. Bearing that in mind, most would deduce that yours and others similarly affected demonstrates a lack thereof.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didnt say they should work for me, I said i expect them to do so..And I do have great expectations..
If only you had applied this criteria to geroge bush..The example of President george bush has broken another myth, the myth that you have stated..the correctness of english and how english speaking judge others on the bases of all this which you wrote is reserved only for the non-english speaking people..So kindly dont even try to use it as an excuse, the myth has been exposed by twice elected president george bush.You can assume whatever you like to assume about my computer, but I have given you straight forward reasons for me not checking my own spellings...And you are a grown up person, and so am I, so lets keep the mothers out of this, we all know that our mothers love us..
Complain about this comment
145. At 10:06pm on 12 Nov 2009, colonelartist wrote:
ok, my question is , why on earth obama really wants to send more troops? its not as if situation has become impossible for the troops in afghanistan, that they need more troops..
Good question. I think you'll find your answer in this article: Stanley McChrystal’s Long War
Complain about this comment
Ref 118, Magic
"Tell his major legislative accomplishments in the U.S Senate?"
Considering the fact that the only candidates with relevant experience are Vice Presidents running for the presidency, I wonder how important it is to have a track record in the Senate or as a former Governor.
Reagan had Hollywood experience and was a former governor of California and look at the economic mess he created with his trickle down economic scheme and deregulation, plus his decision to cut and run in Lebanon. W almost bankrupted his family oil business and a baseball team before he was elected governor. His record as President has been rated among the worse in US history.
Since he was elected 10 months ago, President Obama has accomplished more, domestically and internationally, than the other two gentlemen combined.
The USA is fortunate to have a man with vision, even tempered, focused, determined, and with high moral standards at such a critical time in our history. His personal attributes and deeds are the reason a solid majority of Americans and most people worldwide wish him well and support his policies...regardless of what Rush Limbaugh has to say on the subject...
Complain about this comment
Sec. Clinton responded to a questioner in Pakistan by saying, "We're fighting a war."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the questioner said, "we will not fight your war, this war was imposed on us by you" And sec.clinton couldnt give an answer to the drone question...And she partially accepted the blame for the present mess by saying that creation of taliban is partially usa's fault..I am sure that one was conviently censored in your media, even though she said that in america, after her trip to pakistan.
Drones attack are extra judicial executions according to UN..thus far, usa has refused to answer this...but in the larger context in which the whole war was started, this is just a minor violation..the biggest violation is invading a country on lies, once you were allowed break the hardest law or rule, the rest becomes easy and easily fited into the larger violation.
Complain about this comment
Richard_SM (#146) "I'm sure you get the point in my sentence; the conflict requires a lot of troops on the ground."
I do get your point, but there are two things you should take into consideration in comparing troop levels.
The first is technology. In Desert Storm (1991), laser-guided bombs were first coming into use, and accounted for only a few percent of all bombs used. By Iraqi Freedom (2003), the proportion was about three-quarters. Missile-armed drones were first tested in 2001, and this technology has advanced rapidly so that today it is a major component of operations against al Qaeda.
The second is mission. In Desert Storm, the mission was to evict a well-armed force from Kuwait. Our mission in Afghanistan is not necessarily to destroy the Taliban, but to destroy al Qaeda, estimated at only a few hundred today, and ensure that Afghanistan does not once again become a safe haven for terrorism. That mission does not necessarily require occupation of the whole country.
A simple comparison of force size to population is, I think, simplistic. That said, I do agree with your point that significant troop increases can probably be justified militarily.
The questions are: 1. what is the objective? 2. what is needed to accomplish the objective? I will defer to the President work out the answers.
Complain about this comment
What we would like is for Afghans to take over the defense of their government against the Taliban, of course, which will require a sizable force. Here is a link to a pessimistic view of the problem, by Ann Jones of CBS News:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/21/opinion/main5327533.shtml
Complain about this comment
ref 153, here's the right link to the article.
Complain about this comment
ref #154
Tell his major legislative accomplishments in the U.S Senate?"
Considering the fact that the only candidates with relevant experience are Vice Presidents running for the presidency, I wonder how important it is to have a track record in the Senate or as a former Governor.
Reagan had Hollywood experience and was a former governor of California and look at the economic mess he created with his trickle down economic scheme and deregulation, plus his decision to cut and run in Lebanon. W almost bankrupted his family oil business and a baseball team before he was elected governor. His record as President has been rated among the worse in US history.
Since he was elected 10 months ago, President Obama has accomplished more, domestically and internationally, than the other two gentlemen combined.
The USA is fortunate to have a man with vision, even tempered, focused, determined, and with high moral standards at such a critical time in our history. His personal attributes and deeds are the reason a solid majority of Americans and most people worldwide wish him well and support his policies...regardless of what Rush Limbaugh has to say on the subject...
________________________________-
No the enemies of the USA are fortunate to have such an inept indecisive man who is a product of the ocrrupt Chicago political machine.
He had no accomplishments in his life.
Reagan is the main factor in the Berlen wall coming down, forced the release of the hostages in Iran, etc.
GWB a man of far greater character and integrity than this community orginizer did more for AIDS in Africa than anyone in the world and has led the fight against international terrorism.
Obama has been a disgrace and should do the honorable thing and not seek relection
Complain about this comment
155. At 10:35pm on 12 Nov 2009, colonelartist wrote:
I am sure that one was conviently censored in your media, even though she said that in america, after her trip to pakistan.
No, it wasn't censored. And yes, her comment about America being partially responsible for the Taliban is true.
Complain about this comment
“Who owns the land here?” McChrystal asked, peering up the street and into the shops. “Is it owned by the farmers or by landlords?”
It was the sort of question a sociologist, or an economist, would ask. No one offered an answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one offered the answer because the question didnt have the right option, farmers, landlords or the american army...and no one in afghanistan is stupid enough to provide a correct answer to the american general because no one really wants to die...
Complain about this comment
Ref. 155, colonelartist:
"...the biggest violation is invading a country on lies..."
Aren't you confusing Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't know of anyone who thinks bin Laden and Omar weren't ultimately responsible for 9/11. They themselves say they were and are proud of it.
BTW, none of Clinton's comments were censored by the media in the U.S. I even made reference to that fact in an earlier post.
So, the U.S., who conducts regular drone attacks, wasn't accused of extrajudicial killings by the U.N., but the U.N. defines drone attacks as extrajudicial killings? How can that be? Is the U.N. part of some sort of U.S. led conspiracy?
I'd appreciate a little more focus. I'm having trouble following you. Just take a little more time.
Complain about this comment
What we would like is for Afghans to take over the defense of their government against the Taliban, of course, which will require a sizable force. Here is a link to a pessimistic view of the problem, by Ann Jones of CBS News:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/21/opinion/main5327533.shtml
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you should know is that taliban are not afghan's enemies, they are yours...You want them to choose between karzai and northern alliance, already rejected in favour of taliban in 90s.
Complain about this comment
It's clear this is not an easy decision to make considering the hole we have dug for ourselves. Let us recall that his predecessor let his thinking be done for him by neocons that stampeded the USA into Iraq and deliberately misled the American people - thus causing in large part the current mess.
I see no urgency for a decision. It has taken many years to dig the hole, and I am very glad Obama is taking the time to figure out the best course to get us out. The first rule of holes is stop digging!
Complain about this comment
So, the U.S., who conducts regular drone attacks, wasn't accused of extrajudicial killings by the U.N., but the U.N. defines drone attacks as extrajudicial killings? How can that be? Is the U.N. part of some sort of U.S. led conspiracy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USA can, thats why it doesnt even pay attention to UN's bleating...Do you think people who are against usa are against it because of fun...its because of usa's attitude of one rule for it and the other rule for , its opponents that is the cause..Drone is executions thats why usa doesnt use its own army, but military contractors to do this work for it, when obama said that america will not let americans soldiers down, he wasnt just making empty noises, he has made sured that drones never be linked to the military...And geneva conventions apply to soldiers, not private contractors...
Complain about this comment
ref #163
colonelartist wrote:
What we would like is for Afghans to take over the defense of their government against the Taliban, of course, which will require a sizable force. Here is a link to a pessimistic view of the problem, by Ann Jones of CBS News:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/21/opinion/main5327533.shtml
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you should know is that taliban are not afghan's enemies, they are yours...You want them to choose between karzai and northern alliance, already rejected in favour of taliban in 90s.
_______________-
Tell that to the Afghans beheaded and stoned for not following the barbaric Sharia law. Imposing Sharia law is a war crime!
Complain about this comment
161. At 11:03pm on 12 Nov 2009, colonelartist wrote:
No one offered the answer because the question didnt have the right option, farmers, landlords or the american army...and no one in afghanistan is stupid enough to provide a correct answer to the american general because no one really wants to die...
An interesting point, which I'm sure the General eventually learned. But he only wanted to know so that he could get the landowners together and have them hold elections amongst themselves, in part so there would be a village elder or mayor as a point of contact to whom money and aid could be delivered. Now, did you read the entire article where they talk about his plans for the war and the reasons why he has them?
Complain about this comment
So, the U.S., who conducts regular drone attacks, wasn't accused of extrajudicial killings by the U.N., but the U.N. defines drone attacks as extrajudicial killings? How can that be? Is the U.N. part of some sort of U.S. led conspiracy?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me ask you a simple question. Why do you think usa has karzai? or it pays billions to one man, zardari in pakistan? So that they never take up such things to UN, in the absence of system that would not take complains to UN, usa cannot be accused, so its done by other ways, among other by the UN, thats how the system works..
“The problem with the United States is that it is making an increased use of drones/Predators (which are) particularly prominently used now in relation to Pakistan and Afghanistan, My concern is that drones/Predators are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law, The onus is really on the United States government to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary extrajudicial executions aren’t in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons,” UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston . Obama has not bothered to answer him.
Complain about this comment
Tell that to the Afghans beheaded and stoned for not following the barbaric Sharia law. Imposing Sharia law is a war crime!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
They know, and still they wouldnt want karzai or his northern alliance, because what they did was worse than taliban. compared to them, taliban's sharia law or stoning was just sharia and stoning light..You have no idea what has made afghans even more strong against americans, because americans brought back those whom they had got rid of in 90s..dostum, ismail ahemd shah masood, karzai..who made afghanistan so insecure and lawless that even taliban were considered better...so,remember, taliban are your enemies, not the people of afghanistan...
Complain about this comment
#156 GH1618,
”…but there are two things you should take into consideration in comparing troop levels.”
I’m already aware of changes in weapons technology. Not relevant to the points in my posts.
”Our mission in Afghanistan is not necessarily to destroy the Taliban, but to destroy al Qaeda, estimated at only a few hundred today, and ensure that Afghanistan does not once again become a safe haven for terrorism.”
That option was available to Bush eight years ago. He turned it down and went after the Taliban. That’s been the policy for eight wasted years, and so far, Obama hasn’t changed the essence of the policy.
”A simple comparison of force size to population is, I think, simplistic.”
Of course it is. I don’t have all day. But the disparity in troops-to-population is so great, it screams at you.
Complain about this comment
GH1618,
Colonelartist has it right in post #163 when he says:
"What you should know is that taliban are not afghan's enemies, they are yours...You want them to choose between karzai and northern alliance, already rejected in favour of taliban in 90s.
To 'win,' Obama needs to send at least another 100,000 troops. Unlikely! Or he can withdraw. Or he can tinker around with troop numbers, and put the decision off until his second term.
Complain about this comment
Ref 159, Magic
"No the enemies of the USA are fortunate to have such an inept indecisive man who is a product of the ocrrupt Chicago political machine."
After 8 years of bombings and threats the "enemies" of the USA are negotiating solutions that will help defuse the crises created by the horrible foreign policy decisions made by the Bush Administration.
"He had no accomplishments in his life."
One of his greatest accomplishments was to be elected President of the USA.
"Reagan is the main factor in the Berlen wall coming down, forced the release of the hostages in Iran, etc."
The Berlin wall fell for the same reasons the Soviet Union came to an end. Communism and imperialism are unacceptable to most people, and the Russian people are, clearly, not an exception to that rule. The Iranian hostage crisis came to an end the day after Reagan's inauguration, before he had a chance to become familiar with the White House accomodations. Ayatollah Khomenei had an intense hatred for Carter, which I suspect was fueled by Jimmy's Christian religiosity.
"GWB a man of far greater character and integrity than this community orginizer did more for AIDS in Africa than anyone in the world and has led the fight against international terrorism."
Using GWB and character and integrity in the same sentence should be against the law.
"Obama has been a disgrace and should do the honorable thing and not seek relection"
Dream on. His performance thus far has been brilliant. Most Americans support him and his policies, and plan to vote for him in 2012.
Complain about this comment
Ref 166, Magic
"Imposing Sharia law is a war crime!"
I am not too impressed with many aspects of Sharia law, but since I do not support the death penalty at home I have to admit that there are aspects of our laws that I disagree with on humanitarian grounds.
On the issue of war crimes, Sharia law is not the reason for the largest massacre of civilians in the Islamic world.
Complain about this comment
LOL DC they were not de'liberate miss spellings that jacksforge made but later spell check killed them off and the meanings were lost.
What a shame.
Still you just never liked hearing HillEry being spelt that way;)
This is america, words are insignificant compared to the right to express oneself and interpret as they wish.
right.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 168, colonelartist:
"Why do you think usa has karzai? or it pays billions to one man, zardari in pakistan? So that they never take up such things to UN, in the absence of system that would not take complains to UN, usa cannot be accused, so its done by other ways, among other by the UN, thats how the system works."
No, I don't think we're concerned at all with what the U.N. does in this regard.
They can accuse the U.S. as much as they want. Sanctions only work against the have-nots. Besides even if the U.S. ambassador missed the Security Council meeting somehow, can you imagine Russia and China signing on to that? They would see that as a dangerous precedent, don't you think?
I think we're in basic agreement on how things are set up, but a better example to me would be the World Court, where the U.S. and the rest of the west are clearly treated as above the law. Where are the charges of kidnapping and torture against individuals in the Bush administration?
We are certainly using our economic power to influence the internal affairs of Pakistan, and the Pakistanis are none too fond of the practice, either. I don't know what to say to them, other than to demand that if they claim sovereignty over all of their territory, then they assert sovereignty over all of their territory, which is in fact what they're doing, unpopular though it is with the people of Pakistan.
The Pakistanis have a different way of looking at things. They claim fierce nationalism, and yet they object when their government tries to enforce the laws of the country in all parts of the country. It must be tradition. I don't know how else to explain it.
Complain about this comment
"68. At 4:20pm on 12 Nov 2009, you wrote:
52 DAN why not?
I have heard all sorts of stuff about Islamics AlL sorts.
but americans can't handle simple?
when they behave like it.
There's that bias that infests this site.
Complain about this comment
69. At 4:23pm on 12 Nov 2009, Lord Nathan wrote:
"fluffytale #47: "rather simple minded american people"
Was that remark really necessary?"
Considering the fact of its truth, yes. "
DAN
"126. At 8:41pm on 12 Nov 2009, Dan wrote:
"fluffytale #47: "rather simple minded american people"
Dan: "Was that remark really necessary?"
fluffytale: "Considering the fact of its truth, yes."
Well, I guess as a majority of voters actually did pull the lever for a novice like Obama, your point is well-taken."
Your point or mine DAN?
Complain about this comment
Considering that this is the biggest decision of President Obama's career, a defining moment in history with so many lives on the line, President Obama is using sensible caution.
This decision is HUGE. There will be many chain reactions from this decision. President Obama wants to get it right the first time.
His advisors are all telling him differently. This is going to come down to President Obama's ultimate decision and it will be part of his legacy.
Again, it doesn't get bigger than this. President Obama wants to weigh all his options, before making rash decisions. I am quite glad he is taking his time. We elected him to make good decisions for the American people and our country. That is what he is doing. Give him time and some patience. And please, give President Obama and the USA a chance. There are good people here who want to do the right thing. Do not count us out just yet as war-hungry mongers. The USA could potentially be one of the best forces for good in the coming days. President Obama wants to set us on the right path in the universe. I know I am rooting for him.
Complain about this comment
I wanted to throw in that President Obama saying he doesn't want to do business with corrupt countries is good. It sets a standard.
On another note, I am also impressed with the federal prosecuters going after that so-called nonprofit company that was giving money to the Iran's nuclear program, which is designated as a terrorist organization. Americans like myself are not against Iranians. We are only against Ahmajimijad (because he denies historic events like the Holocaust) and the nuclear program, as Ahmajimijad wants to start a nuclear war in the middle east, which no other country wants.
Complain about this comment
Whoops. I meant do not count us out and do not count us as war-hungry mongers. The two sentences accidentally merged. Lol. But no matter what people from other countries think, I know the truth. We are not war-hungry mongers. We want this war to be over in the right way, as soon as possible. America wants love, not war.
Complain about this comment
Look folks. As a mutt from both sides I'm also a mercan.
And lol not all are as easily fooled as others.;)
Illinoisan don't worry if I had written americans off I wouldn't be here.
They just need constant reminding it seems.
Good luck in world peace. I'm not sarcastic when I say Most want it.
Keep trimming the grass.
Complain about this comment
178 i think you should listen to the words of that diplomat that was held in the embassy in Iran
He didn't sound too much like you ,still what's a diplomat worth when there are wars to fight.
peace doesn't have to be achieved through might.
nor lies.
" Ahmajimijad wants to start a nuclear war in the middle east, which no other country wants."
His country would feel the fall out. Why would he want to start something in the middle east?
If he were to start a pre-emptive war surely he would target those that would also give less fall out.
Why is it that bombs are a "deterrent" from one country and not another. He knows america would easily excuse itself( In it's mind"eye's for eyes") in retaliation using nukes.
Your thinking is suicidal and as of yet I have not seen ahmadinnasbad say he was off on a suicide mission.
Many here would have more respect for him if he did.
So why would he commit suicide by starting a nuke war?
Maybe he too wants a deterrent.
Complain about this comment
colonel . why send more troops?
so that they can enforce protection on those people that are helping , whatever nationality they are.
Believe it or not I do get the concept of sending in More troops.
But I also understand that more will antagonise more people, unless they achieve a rebuild that is probably needed after years of our wars being fought on the land.
Mines , cluster bombs cleaned up.. Surely that is worth letting them do building etc.
wasn't there a time when fun loving peaceful hippies used to come to smoke out and have some non alcoholic fun?
I bet they still do. It is a shame not to be able to feel comfortable sharing culture because war gets in the way.
Complain about this comment
What do you mean a mutt from both sides?
Complain about this comment
Actually, trolls mean people whom you disagree with very much. Is this place supposed to be a "liberal sanctuary?"
Complain about this comment
Lol. So you can't spell his name either?
Ahmajimijad has threatened innocents civilians, saying he wants to wipe them off the face of the Earth. That is why he and Iran should not have nuclear weapons.
The USA is different, because we don't threaten any countries with our nuclear weapons. Besides that, we, along with several other big countries, had them first. What good would it do to spread more nuclear weapons?
Also, Russia has just as many nuclear weapons as us, so why aren't you questioning them, too? We are in the same boat on that one. And China and India have more people in the world, which could be possibly used for a giant military? Why not question them?
I don't think it's fair to go after one country, if you don't go after others. Also, you should not say only bad things about the USA. If you do, you are leaving out half the story. To talk about the real USA, you have to mention the good and the bad. It is all there. Of course, there is good and bad in every country. We are all humans alike, with our human nature. More alike than apart. If there were unfriendly aliens trying to take us out, all humans, no matter what country, would unite. Maybe we need to look more at our similarities than our differences.
Complain about this comment
Ahmajimijad would start a nuclear war because he wants attention and to feel like he is the biggest baddest one out there, even if he is not.
Complain about this comment
129. At 9:02pm on 12 Nov 2009, DouglasFeith wrote:
"...The administration may be in agonies about which direction to take - ... - but it's certainly not in any agonies about Amerika's right to rule Afghanistan and wherever else it pleases, one way or another."
_________
Well, you wouldn't get much argument about the Bush, Jr., administration in that regard, but the present administration seems to find the idea of being an army of occupation offensive, to say the least.
And President Obama, who plainly hates the whole sorry business, is the one stuck trying to figure out how to (a) clean up the mess; (b) come up with a realistic end game; and all the while (c) do as little additional harm as possible.
The thing about wishing to be President is that you have to be careful what you wish for. The law of unintended consequences is brutally effective at humbling mortals.
Complain about this comment
133 and 144 Richard
Those were good posts.
Complain about this comment
#152. colonelartist: "you are a grown up person, and so am I"
I wouldn't have guessed it from your posts. If you're so grown up, check the brackets.
Complain about this comment
110. Gavrielle_LaPoste: "Elections are for challenging candidates qualifications."
***************
Not exactly. Obama's qualifications are only being tested now.
Remember "hope" factored into his election in a very big way. And "change" cleverly replaced "experience" as the basis for his presidency. In other words, Obama sold everyone on the promise of something to come. Americans are only now discovering what he meant by "change" and are deciding whether they like what he's delivering.
Complain about this comment
#173
On the issue of war crimes, Sharia law is not the reason for the largest massacre of civilians in the Islamic world.
__________
The philosophy of Sharia law coupled with Islamic terrorism killed the majority of Afghans, Pakistan and Iraquis in the last 5 years.
Complain about this comment
ref
"GWB a man of far greater character and integrity than this community orginizer did more for AIDS in Africa than anyone in the world and has led the fight against international terrorism."
Using GWB and character and integrity in the same sentence should be against the law.
"Obama has been a disgrace and should do the honorable thing and not seek relection"
Dream on. His performance thus far has been brilliant. Most Americans support him and his policies, and plan to vote for him in 2012.
________________
No most support him not his policies and its about 50/50 right now.
He is an inept person who is lost without his teleprompter and does have the grace to listen to wiser men like Cheney and mcCaiin who are far wiser and more accomplished.
Sarah Palin with all her faults would be doing a better job.
Complain about this comment
192. MagicKirin: "Sarah Palin with all her faults would be doing a better job."
***************
Did you have to mention her name? It's like Abbott & Costello's "Susquehanna Hat Company".
Complain about this comment
#192. MagicKirin: "Sarah Palin with all her faults would be doing a better job."
I hope that you'll be buying her book which has made her a multi-millionaire. She claims that the McCain campaign charged her half-a-million dollars to vet her and that she "felt sorry" for Katie Couric! I suggest that Mark uses her book as a kick-off for another topic; it would produce some interesting observations. I'd be happy to see Kitty Kelly write an unofficial biography, just as she did for Nancy Reagan - I'd bet it would sell even better than the Palin co-written work (she had to have help . . .)
Complain about this comment
I dont know Mark, this whole episode with the "leaked" diplomatic letter sounds more like the President is sidelining his military commanders on the ground in Afghanistan and giving hiimself more time to come to a decision. Don't forget that he just recently rejected the proposals presented to him by the white house national security council because he reportedly didn't like the options available to him. We'll see how this goes, but I think it has more to do with Obama's decision-making process than Karzai.
Complain about this comment
'Seems to me several of these countries' leaderships are merely petty warlords - interested only in their own gains in money and power, and willing to take either without any consideration of the means. So the countries become like torn purses - money flows in at the top and out through a thousand seams.
The leaderships of Iraq and Afghanistan have no scruples at all - and prefer to keep their invaders on hand however so long as they continue to bring with them a big pipeline of cash. This happens to some extent everywhere, of course, but only in Africa is it worse for the people.
Karzai can no longer provide even the facade of legitimate leadership, either to those Afghanis who aspire to nationhood, or to the Western powers who propped him up in the hope that he would cooperate in stabilizing his country. He ha also shown he is incapable of acting even as our agent to provide humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan.
As nations, open democracies and world powers, the allies and the USA in particular are very badly equipped to deal in anyway with nationless movements like the Taliban or Al Qaida, and hardly able to have any lasting influence in places like Afghanistan, where too few put the notion of nationhood above local tribal interests.
More troops of course means more money for those who control distribution in Afghanistan - and probably a longer stay.
Iraqis, over in Mesopotamia, have an ancient tradition of central authority, reinforced rather strongly in the past couple of generations by dictatorial rule.
All they need is effective leadership - which will develop in time, I believe, although it is at least as likely to be harsh and partizan as popular.
Our simple, idealistic goal going into Afghanistan and Iraq - to make them live as we do, were easy to explain and sell to the American public and especially to those who saw opportunities for vast profits, but doomed to fail in all but the latter goal - to make many corporations in America and many Middle Eastern lordlings much, much richer.
In a few months we will declare victory in Iraq and withdraw all the war making forces, leaving only those personnel who are acceptable to the Iraqi leadership because of the cash that will continue to flow through them.
As has been said, Obama is deliberate, and unconcerned with the frenetic appetites of the jackals of the press. He will make time work on his side, and he will find a strategy for Afghanistan that works for American interests:
1) get out - 2) prevent Al Qaida from developing secure bases there so 3) these will result in a stronger, more respected America than the one he inherited from GWB. Only the Republicans will object, and only because they must, or roll over and die quietly.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
ref #193 and 194
I never said Palin was qualified but she would be doing a better job than the clueless community orginizer.
Regarding her book, no I am not going to buy it anymore than I would Obama's last 2 narcistic ones.
Complain about this comment
#70 Gavrielle_LaPoste,
09:35am on 12 Nov 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
Obama has had enough time to make what ever decision he chooses.
And you would know, because you are a high ranking member of the Obama administration with top notch security clearance who sat in on the meetings. You've also seen all four of the different plans being proposed. And you know for a fact that these plans answer all the questions the President asked. You also know the President isn't entitled to have all the facts he wants, especially if he doesn't, in your opinion, need them.
It's amazing the quality of posters this blog attracts.
Apparently, you think President Obama doesn't deserve the same courtesy the nation gave President Bush - an inexperienced president who was facing a terrible national crisis in the first year of his first term.
The economy in recession is a national crisis. Planes used as flying bombs is a Terrorist attack, somewhat different I would think.
----------------------------------
A man of dubious ethics, who bankrupted a Savings & Loan which his father, then President Bush, proceeded to bailout.
You are thinking of Neil Bush, who was the director of Silverado Savings and Loan, NOT George W Bush. Get your facts strait before you question someone else's ethics.
-------------------------
A man whose idea of respecting the troops was to try and force their families to pay for flying the bodies of their loved ones home for burial.
I tried finding any proof of this and I came up empty. Would you care to source this allegation?
------------------------------------
A man who figured we'd left thousands of corpses rotting in European soil (at a time when it wasn't feasible to fly the bodies home or refrigeration on ships didn't exist) so why not do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan?
And you know this how? Are you aware that all fallen soldiers are flown home and accompanied by an honor guard at all times until the remains are turned over to their families? I assume not.
--------------------------------
A man who privately suggested that we re-institute the draft and lower the enlistment age to 16 yrs. (George often forgets that Secret Service agents aren't servants who pretend to hear nothing, see nothing and say nothing to their friends.)
Right, in public he was against any notion of reinstating the draft, but man, in private he really wanted to sign up all the 16 year old's and send them to war! How do we know this? Because someone told me a friend of a friend, who has a friend who's on the Presidents Secret Service detail, said so. What drivel!
--------------------------------------
A man whose work ethic was so dodgy he spent more time on vacation than any other President in history - a truly noble distinction - and wanted his briefing books to be as thin as possible because he didn't like reading.
You're right, Bush spent more time outside the White House than any other President. Bush spent 490 days in Crawford and 487 days at Camp David. At both he received his normal security briefings and held meetings with top aides and foreign leaders during his working vacations. You assume that because he was not in the White House he was not working. He is not the first President who worked outside the White House. Think FDR, Truman, Eisenhower...
-------------------------------------------
And this is the man you want to compare to Barrack Obama. A man who didn't have the luxury of a rich daddy so he wasn't a "legacy" student at Yale, but got himself into Harvard on his own merits. A man who worked among the people in their communities - and not with bankers and oil sheiks.
How do you know how Obama made it into or through Harvard Law school? Obama has refused Harvard from releasing any information about his time there or how he paid his tuition.
---------------------------------------
A man who never needed to learn how the other half lives, because he is part of the other half.
So many of the other half lived in middle class neighborhoods while attending private school in Hawaii. A man who somehow managed to pay his way through Columbia and Harvard with no help. A sad story of lifting ones self up if ever I heard one.
--------------------------------------------------------
Complain about this comment
196 KS Curmudgeon
Another great post. I'd only contend that the corporate bonanza that resulted from Afghanistan and Iraq was most likely an unintended consequence, not a deliberate goal. Much as I disliked the former president (and VP) I won't attribute the profit motive, as this would be clearly far beyond acceptable politics. Take a little cash for the campaign fund? Sure they do. But start a war to benefit the military industrial complex? To paraphrase Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require an extraordinary level of proof.
What Bush & Co. were likely guilty of, however, is the corporatist mindset, the attitude that corporations are in and of themselves better and more efficient at everything they do than the government. I think this attitude led to a clear overreliance on technical solutions and a reluctance to adapt when confronted with clear evidence that we committed far too few troops on the ground in both conflicts. This corporatist or MBA point of view colored everything his administration did, which, combined with Bush's penchant for surrounding himself with people who thought like he did, for not asking for second opinions, and an apparent conviction that America is always in the right, turned into disaster on the world stage.
Complain about this comment
Ref 191, Magic
"The philosophy of Sharia law coupled with Islamic terrorism killed the majority of Afghans, Pakistan and Iraquis in the last 5 years."
Does this mean the 25,000 munitions we dropped during the initial invasion of Iraq were only used for target practice? Get real Magic, we have slaughtered tens of thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan during the past 8 years, precipitated a civil war that should have not taken place, and de-stabilized the entire region. Since Saddam's third world army was wiped out in a week by the most powerful military force in the world, most of those killed have been civilians or insurgents resisting the foreign occupation of their country.
Sharia law doesn't make sense to me, but who am I to decide what other people should do or have? Why do we think we have a divine right to impose our values and lifestyle on others? Have you considered that, perhaps, most people in the Islamic world support the tenets of Sharia law and prefer it over what we have? Just because we like something, or because something works for us, doesn't mean others should accept it.
Besides the geo-political and economic considerations that influenced our decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq there was a clear element of cultural prejudice and a level of arrogance that, judging by some of the posts in this blog, are still very much alive.
Complain about this comment
llinoisan,
In Farsi or Arabic?
There is no more reason to believe those who demonise Ahmadinejad than to believe it's "the Taliban" who are growing all the opium, after virtually eradicating it during their time in power...
Engage mind before putting mouth (or fingers in motion.
Complain about this comment
Curmudgeon,
only in Africa? But, on the rest of your post,and particularlythis, I hope (and expect) you've got it right:
1) get out - 2) prevent Al Qaida from developing secure bases there so 3) these will result in a stronger, more respected America than the one he inherited from GWB. Only the Republicans will object, and only because they must, or roll over and die quietly."
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi
Complain about this comment
Dom,
Whatever gave you that idea?
Complain about this comment
ref #200
Sharia law doesn't make sense to me, but who am I to decide what other people should do or have? Why do we think we have a divine right to impose our values and lifestyle on others? Have you considered that, perhaps, most people in the Islamic world support the tenets of Sharia law and prefer it over what we have? Just because we like something, or because something works for us, doesn't mean others should accept it.
_______________--
First the majority of people don't want sharia Law. Second it is a human rights violation no better than slavery of african americans was, which trthe majority of the south was in favor of.
Proven by the demonstrations in Iran the people don't want to be governed by mullahs and would tear down the pictures of the war criminal Khomeni if they could.
Complain about this comment
Foreigner (84),
But not, perhaps of employees of external contractors?
Complain about this comment
I have two orders of business regarding Majik Kirin. I assume you already know that Majik's pronouncements remain opaque to many observers who dismiss Majik on the basis of his prissy agendas and general lunacy, but I have something more important to tell you. While he is definitely entitled to ignore good advice from intelligent people, some slimy gaberlunzies are actually considering helping him supplant national heroes with ultra-superstitious punks (especially the lethargic type). How quickly such people forget that they were lied to, made fun of, and ridiculed by Majik on numerous occasions.
Wicked smut peddlers, more than any other segment of the population, like to convince impressionable young people that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. Some people might object to that claim, and if they do, my response is: If Majik makes fun of me or insults me I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to provide a positive, confident, and assertive vision of humanity's future and our role in it. Do you really think that indelicate, callow mental defectives are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive, as Majik claims? Wake up! Perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of condescending self-proclaimed arbiters of taste and standards. Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that if I want to have to fight with one hand tied behind my back, that should be my prerogative. I undeniably don't need Majik forcing me to.
Mankind needs to do more to dispense justice. Understand, I am not condemning mankind for not doing enough; I am merely stating that every so often you'll see Majik lament, flog himself, cry mea culpa for forcing me to lie awake at night wondering who his next victim will be, and vow never again to be so beer-guzzling. Sadly, he always reverts to his old behavior immediately afterwards, making me think that by allowing him to promote racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide we are selling our souls for dross. Instead, we should be striving to report as best as possible the facts and circumstances surrounding his crass, vainglorious harangues. Majik insists that he has no choice but to transform our little community into a global crucible of terror and gore. His reasoning is that everyone with a different set of beliefs from his is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell. Yes, I realize that that argument makes no sense, but one of the great mysteries of modern life is, Isn't Majik the jackbooted yahoo who recently wanted to reinforce the concept of collective guilt that is the root of all prejudice? He doesn't want you to know the answer to that question; he wants to ensure you don't rally good-hearted people to the side of our cause. Similarly, he writes a lot of long statements that mean practically nothing. What's sneaky is that Majik constructs those statements in such a way that it never occurs to his readers to analyze them. Analysis would almost certainly indicate that I don't just want to make a point. I don't just want to call people to their highest and best, not accommodate them at their lowest and least. I'm here to give an alternate solution, a better one. I don't just ask rhetorical questions; I have answers. That's why I'm telling you that Majik is thoroughly phlegmatic. We all are, to some extent, but he sets the curve. And there you have it. I wish insecure yutzes like Majik Kirin's followers would quit whining and try doing some honest work for a change.
With thanks to Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator
;-)
Complain about this comment
#204 Majik
What war crimes are you accusing 'Khomeni' of any way? I can only think of one war, and that was a defensive one against your then hero Saddam. Saddam used chemical weapons supplied by the west of course. I'm unaware of any war crimes by Iran.
What gives you the idea that the Iranian protesters did not want Sharia Law or wanted the mullahs taken out of government? They wanted a new election because the previous one was rigged. They preferred the opposition candidate, but he was a former prime minister, not a 'radical', and supported both Sharia Law and the Mullahs.
We have to accept that the Islamic State of Iran is here to stay. It's not going anywhere.
Complain about this comment
205. Ed
LOL.
And I have noticed that the subject matter that offends the moderators seems to vary with the time of day - whether it the day shift, the evening shift, or the night shift.
Complain about this comment
207. At 12:53pm on 13 Nov 2009, dceilar wrote:
"We have to accept that the Islamic State of Iran is here to stay."
_______
Hold on a minute. Has the name changed? I thought it was the "Islamic Republic of Iran".
Complain about this comment
Shhhhhhh!
Complain about this comment
I am writing to express my dismay and concern over The BBC Moderation system's infantile tricks. When writing this letter, I had originally intended to segregate the pure errors of fact in The BBC Moderation system's comments from the assertions of questionable judgment where there could be room for dispute. I eventually decided against that approach because you don't need to be a rocket scientist to detect the subtext of this letter. But just in case it's too subliminal for some, let me thrust it into your face right here: The BBC Moderation system just reported that it has the trappings of deity. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on The BBC Moderation system's part? I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to address what is, in the end, a nonexistent problem.
In purely political terms, I do not appreciate being labeled. No one does. Nevertheless, the last time I heard The BBC Moderation system ramble on in its characteristically bibulous blather it said something about wanting to defy the rules of logic. I feel sorry for the human race when I hear stuff like that. We can no longer afford to do nothing about The BBC Moderation system's stroppy, lackluster insinuations. Instead, we must strike while the iron is hot and view the realms of alcoholism and recidivism not as two opposing poles but as two continua. Now that this letter has come to an end, let me remind you that it was intended to provide an accurate, even-handed, and balanced discussion of The BBC Moderation system and its hypnopompic insights. Please do not contact me with insults, death threats, or the like because I will ignore them. If you disagree with my arguments or can provide further information about The BBC Moderation system, please contact me and I will endeavor to make any necessary corrections to this letter.
Op Cit.
Complain about this comment
Ed, speaking of getting the spelling right, I've noticed that a few posters have had trouble with the name of a famous German (well, Prussian at the time, really) military theorist:
Carl von Clausewitz (1780 - 1831)
His brilliant opus "On War", is a rather influential text, even today.
Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz
Complain about this comment
#209 IF
dceilar@207 "We have to accept that the Islamic State of Iran is here to stay."
Hold on a minute. Has the name changed? I thought it was the "Islamic Republic of Iran".
Oh dear, it looks as though my 'Islamic State of Iran' didn't last too long after all! Oh well.
Complain about this comment
Anyone know how they refer to themselves in Farsi?
Complain about this comment
Believe it or not I do get the concept of sending in More troops.
But I also understand that more will antagonise more people, unless they achieve a rebuild that is probably needed after years of our wars being fought on the land.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sending more troops will antagnise who? the afghans? they are already anatagonised at this invasion, for them, such quantitative changes dont matter..Again its one of americas and the west's own narrative. Americans have not understood that forgein troops be in saudi arabia, confined to their bases or the troops in afghanistan is seen as occupation..If they had just listened to ben laden about their troops presence in saudi arabia, obama wouldnt be doing what clinton did in his two terms, justifying his troops presence in saudi arabia, by saying that king of saudi arabia inviteded the troops to stay..Its a rerun of the same thing.. Invasion is invasion, it doesnt become less if you send 40 000,neither does it become more if you send 100,000 soldiers..
Complain about this comment
The Pakistanis have a different way of looking at things. They claim fierce nationalism, and yet they object when their government tries to enforce the laws of the country in all parts of the country. It must be tradition. I don't know how else to explain it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
all of a sudden after 60 yrs, the military dictator of pakistan decided to enforce the laws of the country in all parts of the country, and convientely it coincides with american occupation of afghanistan? only fools and americans will buy this theory...And pakistanis are neither fools nor americans, so they rejected such claims of that dictator who was loved by the western democracies...
Complain about this comment
190. At 03:04am on 13 Nov 2009, AndreaNY wrote:
Not exactly. Obama's qualifications are only being tested now.
The word used was "questioning" not testing. No one but another President is actually qualified to do the job.
Experience becomes meaningless when confronted by complex issues that require thoughtful, probing questions rather than simplistic, knee-jerk reactions. McCain did not strike me as a thoughtful man who spent a great deal of time thinking about the issues. He spent too much time trying to convince me that I should vote for him because he fell out of the sky and was taken prisoner. I have great respect for McCain, but in this election he was too consumed with keeping "the base" happy and changed his position on a number of issues that I considered important.
Also, I didn't much care for his campaign suspension stunt where he tried to look "Presidential" by running back to Washington when the financial crisis finally came to a head. He wasn't needed and neither was Obama. It was a knee-jerk reaction that made me question his qualifications.
Complain about this comment
For all those looking for a quick withdrawal from Afghanistan, y'all realize of course that this will condemn Afghani women and girls to a literal hell on earth. Personally, I thought the Taliban a criminal regime BEFORE 9/11 and that the UN, the US, the EU (lol!--ok maybe not the EU) or somebody should have removed them shortly after they came to power and proved themselves the monsters they are. Remember the large Buddhist statues carved in a mountain they blew up? Real tolerant folks the Taliban. Remember the beheadings at soccer fields? Regimes like the Taliban and the one in Sudan shouldn't be tolerated. Remember Pol Pot in Cambodia? It took a Vietnamese invasion to remove that nutter from power while the world previously stood by and allowed a government to commit genocide against its own people. Personally, I'd rather the US government spend money protecting Afghani women and girls than on my health care. The US can defend itself, in or outside of Afghanistan, Afghanistan's women and children cannot. (And I realize that is not why we invaded Afghanistan but it should have been imo).
Complain about this comment
This is a much longer post than I had intended when I started. Apologies in advance.
_______
There have been some really interesting postings on this string. 108, 128, 133 and 156 are all make good points, and they all illustrate the range of choices (pretty much all bad), and the problems both of trying to go forward and of trying to go back.
A week and more ago in the "Another Fine Mess" string, I posted a comment about “There’s a hole in my bucket, dear Liza”. When you consider postings 108, 128, 133 and 156, it is pretty much the same theme.
The idea of limiting the task to chasing after the hole-in-the-wall bin Laden gang is really attractive. But the whack-a-mole problem of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and its very difficult terrain, means that to chase Bin Laden you have to be able to pursue on both sides of the border.
But we can’t do that because of the unstable position of the government of Pakistan, the dodginess of its internal intelligence service, and its limited ability to police its own territory; and, on the other side of the border, because the nominal civilian authority in Afghanistan hardly even controls downtown Kabul and downtown Kandahar reliably, which means we are implicitly going to have to either take on the Taliban ourselves (and the forces available are way, way too small, like 250,000 – 400,000 too small) or get the Afghan government forces (really brave soldiers, but corrupt police, not necessarily well armed or well trained, unreliable leadership, inadequate numbers, really dodgy civilian authority) to take on the Taliban as a preliminary for going after Bin Laden.
As Richard points out, there is no way that the NATO powers, which very nearly means America alone, are going to stump up that kind of force. Not only is it politically impossible, America doesn’t have the money for this adventure. Everyday, this war seems more and more to be an unaffordable, unfocused, aimless financial self-indulgence on a grand scale.
__________
The problems just get more and more complicated. The original objectives were long ago lost in the mist, far over the horizon.
This summer a major co-ordinated multi-national military effort was required to move some turbines to a non-functioning hydro-electric dam. It was quite an achievement. But it's a long, long way from the original mission.
The 10th (mountain) division is deployed not to find Bin Laden, but to protect the second largest copper mine in the world - which just happens to be owned by the Chinese.
I wonder how they feel about that in Peoria?
Is China footing the bill for this effort? I hope so.
And all the while, Karzai has been playing us like a plastic Ukelele.
Now we are trying to win a hearts and minds campaign of nation building, and we find ourselves in bed with warlords, druglords, and people who rig elections with no shame. So now we are trying to decide which of our principles to discard next, in a never ending dance of the seven veils, where, at each new humiliating change in the music we must sacrifice something we hold dear.
What will it be this time?
Turn a blind eye to the drug trade?
Turn over prisoners to authorities who we know will torture them, and then ransom them (the free market being alive and well in some respects) to their relatives while we pretend not to notice?
Be complicit with police forces that prey on their own population in an endless series of petty day-to-day shakedowns?
Choke down laws that effectively legalize rape within a marriage?
Ignore electoral fraud?
Heap praise on the cheater who finally agrees to a run-off, while he is all the while making sure that a free and fair run-off can be circumvented?
Rationalize the foreseeable "co-lateral" deaths of civilians?
Overlook the atrocities committed by or on behalf murderous warlords?
Turn a blind eye as we function as a gravy train for every crooked placeholder on the make, simply exacerbating a culture of corruption, the way the Italian campaign gave a boost to the Mafia?
Pay "commissions" to murderous warlords, just as Lord Elphinstone did?
Give arms to murderous warlords, just as Lord Elphinstone did?
Abandon to the retribution of the Taliban, or the drug lords, or both, the local people who risked their lives to be our translators, our local troops in the Afghan Army, the police we trained, the school teachers, construction workers, cooks, drivers and so on, just as Lord Elphinstone did?
And when the music stops,
when the last veil has dropped,
when we have betrayed every principle of decency for which we stand,
when we have shown ourselves, yet again, to be easily manipulated hypocrites,
when we stand there naked and humiliated, shorn of all dignity,
what will we have achieved?
Bin Laden will remain at large.
The Taliban will return to Kabul, and welcome bin Laden with fanfare.
And we will grit our teeth.
________
Think about the cost.
Bin Laden is directly responsible for 3000 deaths on September 11, 2001.
But indirectly, roughly 4000 more western troops have been killed in Afghanistan since then, and untold afghan soldiers and civilians.
The government of Afghanistan is hardly any more stable than it was before we arrived.
The government of Pakistan is being destabilized.
Something like half a trillion dollars (?) has been spent.
Are the Afghan people any safer?
Does Afghanistan look any less like a failed state?
7000 dead, and half a trillion dollars spent. And still the cost keeps growing. Gosh, bin Laden must be laughing. It must be beyond his wildest dreams. And still we keep swinging like a punch drunk palooka.
________
Maybe, just maybe, this war can be won.
Maybe, just maybe, the government of Pakistan has genuinely awakened to the threat to its own stability.
Maybe, just maybe, we can somehow sideline the Karzai brothers, sideline the various warlords, and build trustworthy civic institutions from scratch.
Maybe, just maybe, if Karzai and the Warlords (sounds like a heavy metal band - in some ways maybe it is) can be sidelined, we can convince Afghans to fight off the Taliban themselves.
Maybe, just maybe, we can make it safe for Afghan children to go to school, and for Afghan school teachers to teach them.
But when, and how, and at what price?
What genuine strategic interest does America have in Afghanistan?
Does America have any greater genuine strategic interest in Afghanistan than it had in August 2001?
Does America have any greater strategic interest in Afghanistan than it had in January 1979?
Does America have any greater strategic interest in Afghanistan than it had in, say, 1937?
There are countries in the neighbourhood that really do have a strategic interest in Afghanistan. We are not among them. There are three major powers (India, China, and Russia) and two regional powers (Pakistan and Iran) who have been there a long time, who know the lay of the land physically, culturally, and historically, and who have, because of their long term interests, the long term staying power that we don't have.
There will always be people who hate us. We will always have to defend against terrorism - whether from home grown wackos like Timothy McVeigh, or the Unabomber, or Jim Jones; or far away wackos, be they bin Laden, the dictator of Libya, the President of Iran, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, Auric Goldfinger, Blofeld, Moriarity, or anyone else.
We don't even know whether bin Laden is still there. How do we know he isn't in Dubai or Londonistan, or, let's say, Minsk or Caracas, or even Sydney or Toronto, or Detroit? We think he is probably in Pakistan, but the truth is we have no definitive proof of where he is. Even if we kill bin Laden tomorrow, is anybody really suggesting that the threat of terrorism, whether Islamic or otherwise, would be lessened one iota? Is there anybody suggesting that others wouldn't rise to take his place? To "avenge" his death?
__________
But there is a saying that all politics is local. The sooner we get out of these people's faces, the sooner cooler heads are going to prevail. Look at how America's relations with Vietnam have changed in thirty years. Not a bed of roses, but better than before. We aren't going to change everybody's minds, but most of the great sea of emnity can be left to drain or evaporate.
We aren't going to win the "War on Terror" by bombing people. Did the Blitz reduce England's will to resist?
We do not find justice by committing injustice.
We are going to win the "War on Terror" by draining that sea of emnity, by drying up the source of recruits.
We are going to win the "War on Terror" by using diplomatic and economic levers to make it slowly and steadily painful for countries to harbour terrorists. (Granted, the inability, as yet, to capture Ratko Mladic is not a happy precedent, though.)
We are going to win the "War on Terror" by turning the bin Laden problem over to law enforcement agencies, and then letting them quietly get on with their work. (Again, the Mldaic and Omar Bashir precedents are not yet very encouraging.)
The culture of impatience and instant gratification will not like that: it is slow, patient, boring work. They will characterize it as wussy.
And someday, bin Laden will come to the end of the road. Perhaps when he least expects it.
_________
We need to stop the music, and end the dance of the seven veils.
The disaster in the first Afghan war came after Lord Elphinstone stopped paying protection money to the local thugs. He then lost control of his line of supply and communication back to base.
We need to secure our line of supply and communication, and then we need to stop being complicit with the local thugs. We need to make a plan to bring this thing to a close with or without the help or acquiescence of anybody else. If they help us, fine. If they don't, then we will continue to take steady, orderly steps, under our own control to wind this thing down.
We need to stop the dance.
Complain about this comment
For all those looking for a quick withdrawal from Afghanistan, y'all realize of course that this will condemn Afghani women and girls to a literal hell on earth. Personally, I thought the Taliban a criminal regime BEFORE 9/11 and that the UN, the US, the EU (lol!--ok maybe not the EU) or somebody should have removed them shortly after they came to power and proved themselves the monsters they are. Remember the large Buddhist statues carved in a mountain they blew up? Real tolerant folks the Taliban. Remember the beheadings at soccer fields? Regimes like the Taliban and the one in Sudan shouldn't be tolerated. Remember Pol Pot in Cambodia? It took a Vietnamese invasion to remove that nutter from power while the world previously stood by and allowed a government to commit genocide against its own people. Personally, I'd rather the US government spend money protecting Afghani women and girls than on my health care. The US can defend itself, in or outside of Afghanistan, Afghanistan's women and children cannot. (And I realize that is not why we invaded Afghanistan but it should have been imo).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just for your information, afghan women werent created during taliban era, they had been there for thousands of years, and that includes those years when the trend of burning down girl's schools started by those mujadedin supported by the americans...You cannot protect afghani girls or women as long as you kill afghani men and boys..
Complain about this comment
217. Gavrielle_LaPoste:
190. At 03:04am on 13 Nov 2009, AndreaNY wrote:
Not exactly. Obama's qualifications are only being tested now.
The word used was "questioning" not testing. No one but another President is actually qualified to do the job.
******************
I believe that Americans are only questioning him now, too -- based on his actions. Before they really had nothing to go on but his promises and rhetoric.
McCain's irrelevant at this point. President Obama's being compared to candidate Obama.
Complain about this comment
We need to stop the dance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correction. you need to stop being corrupt.
Complain about this comment
Mark - how come you aren't travelling with the President to Asia?
Complain about this comment
Foreigner (219)
The song of truth is a long song.
We need to stop the dance.
Complain about this comment
colonelartist: "You cannot protect afghani girls or women as long as you kill afghani men and boys.."
By your logic, the Vietnamese army couldn't protect Cambodians by killing the Cambodians who were engaging in the slaughter of other Cambodians. Yet, indeed, that was what was required to end Pol Pot's regime. And I don't recall the world doing much for Afghani women by not killing Taliban when they were in power. The fact is bad regimes that grossly and repeatedly violate the human rights of their citizens sometimes need to be replaced by the external use of force. The Taliban, the regimes in Burma and Sudan, should be treated as criminals and not pretended sovereigns of any state.
Complain about this comment
Obama is caught between an irresistible force and an unmovable object. On the one hand, his military advisors are unanimously calling for an increased level of troops. On the other hand, the majority of the American public is opposed to an open ended involvement in Afghanistan. Obama also has problems now, as his first priority is the health care bill.
Recent developments with the Eikenberry cables indicate that Obama is on the verge of strictly limiting future commitments to Afghanistan, but is concerned about blowback from his military advisors and Republicans.
Complain about this comment
#197. MagicKirin: "Regarding (Palin's) book, no I am not going to buy it anymore than I would Obama's last 2 narcistic ones."
If you haven't read Mr Obama's books, how do you know they are "narcissistic"? You've been watching too much Beck and Hannity.
Complain about this comment
224. Yep.
Complain about this comment
By your logic, the Vietnamese army couldn't protect Cambodians by killing the Cambodians who were engaging in the slaughter of other Cambodians. Yet, indeed, that was what was required to end Pol Pot's regime. And I don't recall the world doing much for Afghani women by not killing Taliban when they were in power. The fact is bad regimes that grossly and repeatedly violate the human rights of their citizens sometimes need to be replaced by the external use of force. The Taliban, the regimes in Burma and Sudan, should be treated as criminals and not pretended sovereigns of any state.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
that is your logic, you cannnot keep on creating widows and orphans and then stay in afghanistan to protect the women..You cannot keep on killing their men in the name of their protections..
As soon as the Taliban retreated, they were replaced – by the warlords who had ruled Afghanistan immediately before. Joya says that, at this point, "I realised women's rights had been sold out completely... Most people in the West have been led to believe that the intolerance and brutality towards women in Afghanistan began with the Taliban regime. But this is a lie. Many of the worst atrocities were committed by the fundamentalist mujahedin during the civil war between 1992 and 1996. They introduced the laws oppressing women followed by the Taliban – and now they were marching back to power, backed by the United States. They immediately went back to their old habit of using rape to punish their enemies and reward their fighters."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/malalai-joya-the-woman-who-will-not-be-silenced-1763127.html
Read it or not, its not my headache..I am not saying that you should not stop believing what your governments told you, but atleast dont try to convince others,like me, who happen to know more than you can even imagine, the lies you readily believe..
Complain about this comment
227. David_Cunard:
#197. MagicKirin: "Regarding (Palin's) book, no I am not going to buy it anymore than I would Obama's last 2 narcistic ones."
If you haven't read Mr Obama's books, how do you know they are "narcissistic"? You've been watching too much Beck and Hannity.
***************
Do you really think you have to have read them to know whom they are about? They were all the rage until they were used as examples of "experience" on his slim resume.
That Fox criticism is old and overused. And it's really only an insult in the minds of people who have an issue with Fox.
Complain about this comment
198. At 09:59am on 13 Nov 2009, rodidog wrote:
The economy in recession is a national crisis. Planes used as flying bombs is a Terrorist attack, somewhat different I would think.
I take it you never turned on the television, read a newspaper or listened to the radio after September 11, 2001. The nation was in crisis due to a huge national security breach which precipitated a war. If you didn't know we were going to war from day one when the Pentagon got hit, you weren't paying attention. And with the exception of yourself, I think every American would consider that a national crisis.
A recession isn't technically a national crisis, btw. We've had them before. It's the massive loss of wealth and the potential collapse of the major banks, which might in turn have caused the collapse of the entire global economy that makes this a crisis - and not necessarily just a national one. And remember, all this started two years before the election. I was hearing rumblings about it as early as 2006, though anyone with any sense knew there was a disaster in the making when they deregulated the banking industry.
You are thinking of Neil Bush, who was the director of Silverado Savings and Loan, NOT George W Bush. Get your facts strait before you question someone else's ethics.
My apologies. Then how about his insider trading violations as concern Harken Energy Corporation?
From Campaign Watch dot org:
In 1990 Bush sold $828,560 worth of Harken stock just one week before the company stock posted unusually poor quarterly earnings and Harken stock plunged sharply. Shares lost more than 60% of their value over 6 months. When Bush sold his shares, he was a member of a company committee studying the effect of Harken's restructuring, a move to appease anxious creditors. According to documents on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, his position on the Harken committee gave Bush detailed knowledge of the company’s deteriorating financial condition. The SEC received word of Bush's trade eight months late.
On September 7, 2000, Associated Press reported that U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission documents newly released under the Freedom of Information act demonstrated that before he sold the stock, George W. Bush was fully aware that Harken was suffering from a severe cash crisis and was poised to lose millions.
I tried finding any proof of this and I came up empty. Would you care to source this allegation?
That would be the deductions taken directly out of military families benefits by the DoD that my sister, a US Army colonel, saw when in command of an American fort several years ago. The families complained and the military pointed out to the DoD, which took their marching orders from Donald Rumsfeld, who answered to George W. Bush, that a soldier, dead or alive, is still the property of the US military. Therefore, the US military is required to dispose of their property in an appropriate manner. The Joint Chiefs had been unaware that this had become DoD policy and nearly hit the roof. Another friend was at the meeting where Bush expressed his complete and utter disregard, giving in only when he was told that it was bad for moral.
It was reported, btw, but you'd have to read the Army Times. The mainstream media wasn't interested.
And you know this how? Are you aware that all fallen soldiers are flown home and accompanied by an honor guard at all times until the remains are turned over to their families? I assume not.
See above. The families were being charged the cost of the flight, i.e. the fuel.
Right, in public he was against any notion of reinstating the draft, but man, in private he really wanted to sign up all the 16 year old's and send them to war! How do we know this? Because someone told me a friend of a friend, who has a friend who's on the Presidents Secret Service detail, said so. What drivel!
Not quite a "friend of a friend". More like a friend of the family. And I believe the idea was shot down by a couple of Republican senators. One of which said he wouldn't trust his 16 year old son to clean his room, much less carry a gun and follow orders.
You're right, Bush spent more time outside the White House than any other President. Bush spent 490 days in Crawford and 487 days at Camp David. At both he received his normal security briefings and held meetings with top aides and foreign leaders during his working vacations. You assume that because he was not in the White House he was not working. He is not the first President who worked outside the White House. Think FDR, Truman, Eisenhower...
I'll bet he got a lot of work in between his brush clearing photo ops, barbecues and several hours a day of bicycle riding - before he went to bed at 9 pm. You know, sometimes the appearance of wrong doing is a detriment to one's career, even if no wrong doing occurred. As for Truman, he spent most of his time in Blair House, because the White House was gutted and refurbished during his administration.
How do you know how Obama made it into or through Harvard Law school? Obama has refused Harvard from releasing any information about his time there or how he paid his tuition.
How do you know George W. Bush showed up for his National Guard duties? Because he said so?
It has nothing to do with Obama not releasing the information. It has to do with Harvard policy. No one's private information is to be made available. And that goes for every school - by law.
As for his finances, those have been made available. Both he and his wife took out student loans only recently paid off. Honestly, Rodi, read a newspaper once in a while.
So many of the other half lived in middle class neighborhoods while attending private school in Hawaii. A man who somehow managed to pay his way through Columbia and Harvard with no help. A sad story of lifting ones self up if ever I heard one.
First, the "other half" is the middle class, or anyone else who isn't considered a member of the "born with a silver spoon in your mouth" club. Second, Hawaii has one of the worst public school systems in the country. If I lived there I'd send my kid to private school too. Even if I had to eat pasta every night and work double shifts. Lastly, did you somehow manage to forget that Columbia and Harvard accept student loans as tuition? And in those days, the cost of tuition was not prohibitively high. I was in college in NYC at the same time as Obama. Columbia's tuition was around $5,700. Harvard was certainly more expensive for law school, but doable on student loans even today.
Complain about this comment
"Lol. So you can't spell his name either?
Ahmajimijad has threatened innocents civilians, saying he wants to wipe them off the face of the Earth. That is why he and Iran should not have nuclear weapons."
illinoisan.
Sure I could. I didn't. there is a difference.
As to this threat. I would like to see the translation of his comments. maybe two , just to make sure that we were not being fed erroneous porpaganda as you are trying now.
He threatened no one.
He did say God would etc..
Not him. He knows he's not God.
Your reactions are based on You not his comments .
Show me the quote. with a translation not from the silly AP guy that "got it wrong"..
Richard SM will be able to inform you as to what was really said.
You base your hatred on your own fantasies, as so many here do.
Do attack his regieme for things they have done rather than what you were conned into believing they haddone.
The Old testament loving Christians should remember the "thou shalt not bere false witness"
right up there with the others, Top ten no can do's.
Complain about this comment
Again you act like Garys general.
only here the american rubbish.
"The USA is different, because we don't threaten any countries with our nuclear weapons".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U39zae4IxUA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u1nmGmtD18
Complain about this comment
colonelartist 229: "I am not saying that you should not stop believing what your governments told you, but atleast dont try to convince others,like me, who happen to know more than you can even imagine, the lies you readily believe.."
I almost never believe what my government tells me, be it Bush or Obama or whoever, be it on foreign policy or health care or whatever. And yes, women were not terribly well off in Afghanistan prior to the Taliban (though I don't know that the burqa was required every time a woman stuck her head out the door). The best thing to happen to Afghanistan--which tells you what a sad history it has had--was probably the establishment of the communist government in the late 70s. The problem in Afghanistan today is the unwillingness of the world's democracies to provide the overwhelming force needed to protect the population while annihilating and demoralizing the bad-guys. And overwhelming force can bring about permanent regime change, ask the Nazi's in Germany or the militarists in Japan.
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner (#219) "The problems just get more and more complicated. The original objectives were long ago lost in the mist, far over the horizon."
Certainly the problems are complicated, but I don't agree that "the original objectives were long ago lost," at least among the people who matter.
Here is a link to the President's remarks on the strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan (27 March 2009), followed by an excerpt of one paragraph:
President's statement of 27 March 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. That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: We will defeat you." (President Obama - excerpt from linked statement of 27 Mar 2009)
This could hardly be clearer, in my opinion. The devil is in the details, however. Here's a link to some cogent commentary on the policy from Frontline
George Packer quotes administration officials as saying "We have about 12 months." We are still within that window and we are expecting more from the President on this subject soon. I believe that the country (US) is in good hands and I'm content to give the Administration the time it needs.
As for this remark of yours: "Everyday, this war seems more and more to be an unaffordable, unfocused, aimless financial self-indulgence on a grand scale." I don't agree with any of it, and your last characterization seems to me to be especially unwarranted. "Financial self-indulgence"? What is that supposed to mean? Do you suppose that the US has spent about a trillion USD because it's fun to play expensive war games with all that cool hardware? You are trivializing a very serious matter, I think.
Complain about this comment
231. At 4:39pm on 13 Nov 2009, Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote:
"... As for Truman, he spent most of his time in Blair House, because the White House was gutted and refurbished during his administration."
_______
And also, in part, because Bess Truman hated the White House. She (and more so her mother) seem never to have managed to get their minds around the idea that her husband was President of the United States.
Complain about this comment
#230. AndreaNY: "Do you really think you have to have read them to know whom they are about?"
If that were the case, why would anyone read anything, especially political autobiographies? By your reckoning there will be no need to read former president Bush's book since everyone will know what it's about.
"That Fox criticism is old and overused. And it's really only an insult in the minds of people who have an issue with Fox."
My, you are defensive! I didn't mention Fox but two rather specific broadcasters. Mr Hannity just apologised for misleading his viewers for using rally images that supported his estimates when they were taken on separate days at separate events. His credibility, which has always been low, is in shreds.
Complain about this comment
"186. At 01:45am on 13 Nov 2009, Illinoisan wrote:
Ahmajimijad would start a nuclear war because he wants attention and to feel like he is the biggest baddest one out there, even if he is not."
Tht is exactly what they said about Saddam and the reality was he was writing mills and boon romance novelettes.
PS I wasn't far of with poetry which I thought he was writing.
However what was true was he had no nukes or WMD's.
Complain about this comment
221. At 3:59pm on 13 Nov 2009, AndreaNY wrote:
I believe that Americans are only questioning him now, too -- based on his actions. Before they really had nothing to go on but his promises and rhetoric.
Well, duh! No one has anything to go on in an election but hyperbole and promises, not from any candidate.
McCain's irrelevant at this point. President Obama's being compared to candidate Obama.
McCain's election promises and behavior are as relevant as candidate Obama's at this point. Which is that none of it is relevant. If you expected anything other than what's happening now then you are blissfully unaware of the political realities in running a country.
Complain about this comment
I almost never believe what my government tells me, be it Bush or Obama or whoever, be it on foreign policy or health care or whatever. And yes, women were not terribly well off in Afghanistan prior to the Taliban (though I don't know that the burqa was required every time a woman stuck her head out the door). The best thing to happen to Afghanistan--which tells you what a sad history it has had--was probably the establishment of the communist government in the late 70s. The problem in Afghanistan today is the unwillingness of the world's democracies to provide the overwhelming force needed to protect the population while annihilating and demoralizing the bad-guys. And overwhelming force can bring about permanent regime change, ask the Nazi's in Germany or the militarists in Japan.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghanistan was not in the ultimate 24/7 state of happiness like usa was, but it was definately better than america first started to use it as battlefield to fight a proxy war with ussr. Burka is something you are obbessed with, afghans women have been using it for centuries..afghanistan is not germany nor is it japan, its afghanistan..And in afghanistan, the west replaced taliban with the war lords, afghans worst nightmare..Its your right to question your government about it, and then only then start accusing taliban or start supporting women..NATO supports northern alliance, its seen as one of the northern alliance by afghans..they are not going to like usa's invasion if usa, tomorrow becomes sincere..So find ben laden, even if it means trippling your troops presence, and get out of there..
Complain about this comment
235. Gary.
I'll grant you that the statement of goals is clear enough. But the point about the devil being in the details is right. We have been there eight years, and I doubt if our troops have spent five days trying to find bin Laden. For several years they kept "mowing the grass". I believe our strategy has moved on, and we aren't failing for lack of good intentions. For our troops, the original goals are so far from what they are doing on a day-to-day basis that I think it is fair to say they have disappeared over the horizon.
12 months, fair enough. It isn't reasonable to expect instant miracles.
No, I am not trivializing it. The US is running what is hopefully a one-off extraordinary budget deficit of 12% of GNP. That is unsustainable.
And, at the same time, America is bogged down in an expensive war at the end of a very long supply line, where it doesn't have anything like enough resources on the ground to do the job, hamstring by hugely problematic local political problems that are either wholly or largely out of its control.
Where is the value for money that justifies this expenditure when America is running that large a budget deficit?
Complain about this comment
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. That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: We will defeat you."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The president should have been promptly reminded that the orginal goal was to get alqaeda in afghanistan, not pakistan..There is no alqaida in pakistan, its all in american government's mind..an idea planted in their minds because they went to war poorly planned and northern alliance as their allies..
Complain about this comment
If palins book is printed on thin enough paper will it work for bog roll.
Complain about this comment
237. David_Cunard: "My, you are defensive! I didn't mention Fox but two rather specific broadcasters"
*************
Come on, now. Like there's really a difference.
Not defensive. Just tired of hearing it.
Complain about this comment
236. At 4:56pm on 13 Nov 2009, Interestedforeigner wrote:
And also, in part, because Bess Truman hated the White House. She (and more so her mother) seem never to have managed to get their minds around the idea that her husband was President of the United States.
Very true. It's funny how first families react to the whole presidential rigmarole. I've always liked the fact that the ladies weren't impressed by the trappings of the office. It kept Truman's feet firmly on the ground and made him a good administrator.
Complain about this comment
Fluff, you seem happy to take richard's translation of what dinnersbad really said without question. Here's what the bbc reported at the time. They quote reaction from around the world, including the middle east and from within iran. As I read it, they all knew what was meant. It it was not what richard suggests with his version of a literal translation. You are not usually so slavish to dictionary definitions of words.
Complain about this comment
Fluff, you seem happy to take richard's translation of what dinnersbad really said without question. Here's what the bbc reported at the time. They quote reaction from around the world, including the middle east and from within iran. As I read it, they all knew what was meant. It it was not what richard suggests with his version of a literal translation. You are not usually so slavish to dictionary definitions of words.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did american atom bombs wiped out japan from the the maps?
Complain about this comment
What clear-headed moral person does not expect History to eventually wipe the Zionist colonial adventure off the map? Nineteenth Century attitudes and behaviour in the twenty First, no less!
Complain about this comment
239. Gavrielle_LaPoste:
"221. At 3:59pm on 13 Nov 2009, AndreaNY wrote:
I believe that Americans are only questioning him now, too -- based on his actions. Before they really had nothing to go on but his promises and rhetoric."
Well, duh! No one has anything to go on in an election but hyperbole and promises, not from any candidate.
"McCain's irrelevant at this point. President Obama's being compared to candidate Obama."
McCain's election promises and behavior are as relevant as candidate Obama's at this point. Which is that none of it is relevant. If you expected anything other than what's happening now then you are blissfully unaware of the political realities in running a country.
******************
What a wonderful way of saying Obama was full of it during his campaign.
And, no, I don't think McCain's relevant at this point. At least not with respect to how Obama's actions are being evaluated against his campaign promises.
When your rhetoric is as strong and deeply believed as Obama's was, it doesn't disappear from a voter's mind once elected. His greatest strength was his ability to make people believe him. Their belief is what got him elected. They're not going to suspend it now because it's post-election. On the contrary.
Complain about this comment
Obama’s dithering attitude towards this issue further confirms his inexperience, callousness, and boyish mentality. It also clearly shows he has no clue what is going on and most of all , clearly there is no objective or goal now in this war as we have very sadly forgotten why we went there. As a reminder I would like to say, we went there with only one objective and those are “Destroy Al-Qaeda”, “Catch Osama and his partner Alzawahari and all others”, and bring them to justice. We did not go there to make love and peace or rebuild a nation. It is also utterly absurd to conduct an election and asking a powerless “proxy government” like Karzai’s to ask to be “Corruption-less”, when you cannot even expect that in the U.S.A. Having said that I would like to say Obama has not yet delivered on even one single thing and is behaving like a spoiled “High-School-Brat”, and like to be in the spot light of the media than to do his duty as a “President”. This delay on his part will go down in history as a “Disastrous Failure” as a leader and as the great book “Tsu-Sue – Art of War” says “ a leader who takes a lot of time bickering and wondering to make a decision in the time of war will lead his country to a terrible defeat and calamity”. If we have to win this we have to do couple of things. One, We have to actively engage India and Russia “Militarily” and ask them to join us and we should not rely on Pakistan. Two, we should focus on regions like “Chital and North-Warizthan” and “Destroy” it completely. Third, we need to give deadlines to Pakistan to hand over all the big leaders of all the militant organization like the “Lakshar-al-thieeba”, etc…who have a home in Pakistan and not be satisfied if they just hand us over a low level criminal and calling him a key in these organization and we should never compromise on this one thing. Throwing money to this Mis-criminant, unstable, Anti-American countries will never ever solve the problem as their problem has been there more than 1500 years now and we just got sucked into it.
America has to grow some balls and back bone for once and its leaders should stand-up for its people and its country first. Like the wise man says “Charity Starts at home”. It’s high time to act “Now”, Mr. President.
Complain about this comment
225 do remember that at the present time your logic capabilities are still in question.
just for laughs cause n oones pointedthis one out for a while.
WHAT PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON?
I to this day have never seen any footage even grainy to support the existence of a plane at the pentagon.
Any one?
Just one?
Surely it's not that secret that we will be able to engage in terrorism if we see the picture of the plane hitting the worlds most secure building?
(or nor).
anyone?
Not one camera caught it?
Not even the ones around the traffic islands around the pentagon?
Have we been told the truth?
Just to add that to the mix. Personally I'm accepting GW at his word.
I'll still prefer to see him tried for treason when he allowed lies to start wars.
Encouraged lies.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/pent_collapse_look.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm&h=349&w=512&sz=26&tbnid=ObbyM-Uplu65QM:&tbnh=89&tbnw=131&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpicture%2Bof%2Bplane%2Bthat%2Bhit%2Bthepentagon&usg=__ao54eI1K4Ny5-KEcR4Ay8KBTMOs=&ei=T5j9SojVFYOssgPerPWHCw&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=4&ct=image&ved=0CA8Q9QEwAw
Complain about this comment
colonialartist 240: "Afghanistan was not in the ultimate 24/7 state of happiness like usa was, but it was definately better than america first started to use it as battlefield to fight a proxy war with ussr. Burka is something you are obbessed with, afghans women have been using it for centuries"
My previous post agreed with the sentiment that Afghanistan was better off under a communist government. Indeed, I think Afghanistan would be better off with most any government or no government at all than with the Taliban. And I am not "obsessed" w/ burqas nor do I have a problem with Afghan women wearing them--as long as they do so voluntarily, such was not nor will not be the case under the Taliban.
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner (#241), certainly the cost is enormous and unsustainable. About one trillion USD has been spent on Iraq and Afghanistan combined. About two-thirds of that is for Iraq. Disengagement from Iraq is essential, and that is supposed to be substantially achieved in 2010.
As for AfPak and operations against al Qaeda and their allies in the region, this must be sustained, in my opinion, until our objectives are met.
Complain about this comment
#14, Magic, you are spot on. Someone espousing entitlement at the expense of others took the brass ring in 2008.
nickr - Lest you forget JFK caused the Cuban Missile Crisis with his half-hearted Bay of Pigs blunder. Had it not been for Joe Kennedy entertaining FDR on a regular basis, JFK would have been court martialed in the 1940's for sinking his PT boat and losing most of his crew. If JFK paused on the Cuban Missile Crisis, it because he blundered so badly in his earlier decisions.
Dither? No. How about "abandon"? While the president looks for his next photo op and tries to look magestic, our troops are incurring the highest rate of casualties that we have had since Nixon. Our troops are not allowed to fire until fired upon. Our generals are not allowed to call in air support to support troops in trouble (ambushed).
Give Obama his second year and he will have matched the total deficit and casualties of the previous administration.
Complain about this comment
DAN.
As you know from first-hand ezperience, no doubt.
"the Taliban" is not a monolithic entity. Our secular (co-educational) schools in Nuristan began and continue with the blessing of the 'local Taliban'.
Check it out
Complain about this comment
My previous post agreed with the sentiment that Afghanistan was better off under a communist government. Indeed, I think Afghanistan would be better off with most any government or no government at all than with the Taliban. And I am not "obsessed" w/ burqas nor do I have a problem with Afghan women wearing them--as long as they do so voluntarily, such was not nor will not be the case under the Taliban.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And its thoughts like yours, that afghanistan would be better off with any government than taliban, which led america to put northern alliance and karzai back in power..the people whom aghans consider worse than taliban... YOu should not have any problems with burka's at all, you are not afghan nor a muslim, it doesnt concern you..Otherwise you end up like Sarkozy, banning head scarfs, and in doing so acting like taliban..one forced burka's other banned head scarfs..
Complain about this comment
our troops are incurring the highest rate of casualties that we have had since Nixon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
58 thoudand soldiers killed in 3 decades. do the math and tell us, how many in a month, and then compare it with the present war in afghanistan..
Complain about this comment
249. At 5:30pm on 13 Nov 2009, AndreaNY wrote:
What a wonderful way of saying Obama was full of it during his campaign.
So is every candidate in every election these days. Obama is no different. And feeling self-satisfied about that is childish.
Me, I'd like to go back to the days when the candidates didn't personally campaign, because it was considered inappropriate to talk one's self up to gain higher office. Lincoln never left his home in Springfield once he was nominated. He also never commented publicly, except to say that everything he believed had already been published and the public must read his opinions for themselves.
And, no, I don't think McCain's relevant at this point. At least not with respect to how Obama's actions are being evaluated against his campaign promises.
I have only one expectation of Obama based on his campaign promises. Or of any President I help elect, for that matter. With Bill Clinton it was a balanced budget. He accomplished that and I got my money's worth as his employer. With Obama it is health care reform. Or, more accurately, making health care more affordable for the vast majority of Americans. I don't care how he does it. Public option or not, I want the insurance companies to stop gouging their customers, insure those with pre-existing conditions at reasonable rates, and be prevented from dropping policies when the customer gets sick enough to need the coverage they pay for. If he accomplishes that, I will be satisfied that he did the job I hired him to do.
When your rhetoric is as strong and deeply believed as Obama's was, it doesn't disappear from a voter's mind once elected. His greatest strength was his ability to make people believe him. Their belief is what got him elected. They're not going to suspend it now because it's post-election. On the contrary.
That is the fault of the voter. I have no sympathy for pie-in-the-sky dreamers who apply unrealistic expectations to anyone. If some voters want to engage in "magical thinking" that's their business. But to use another tired metaphor, "Don't count your chickens before they're hatched". As someone who lived in Obama's district when he was in the Illinois State Legislature, and voted for him, the man has a way of making things happen. He may not satisfy everyone on every point, but he gets the job done.
Complain about this comment
Seanspa.
your link says nothing about what was said. it has a few words quoted out of context then talks of others reactions.
Where is that translation.
I'll believe it when I read it but all I read is little bits, out of context.
think somethings being hidden.
So Innocent until PROVEN guilty.
and free speech is the right of every person. right?
Do post me that link with a translation . I will accept the validity of the version I read richard SM put up once (and not only person) as much as the ones the AP put out.
Until I see the truth.
But every time this discussion has happened no one ha provided a decent report that is not swamped in bias.
I am not one to hold the dictionary up as defined but the press reports of others comments when most are as bias as GW , Hillery and just about every poster here that keeps crapping on about that speech.
The palestinian guy was doing what he must.
Saying (we reject) these words , his statement.
If not they would be bombed and the gherkin would be screaming "see see see"
Complain about this comment
253. At 5:42pm on 13 Nov 2009, GH1618 wrote:
... As for AfPak and operations against al Qaeda and their allies in the region, this must be sustained, in my opinion, until our objectives are met.
________
Three points, I guess.
First, I meant to mention that I agree with the patient, careful approach being taken by the Obama administration. America is paying a bad price for previous hasty decisions. Obama's approach actually involves thinking before committing troops. That is cause for relief, at least in my view.
Second, do you believe that this war can be brought to a successful conclusion while Hamid Karzai remains in a position to undermine the NATO effort?
Third, given that the current forces are way, way too small for the job, where is America going to find the money, and troops, to get the job done? Apparently it costs $ 250,000 per soldier per year to maintain the force in Afghanistan. For comparison, this is apparently roughly ten times the cost of hiring Kenyans, Rwandans or Ugandans to do the job. (Leave aside, for the moment at least, the moral and ethical implications that flow from that comment). If it already costs too much when the force is too small, how is it going to cost less when the force is larger?
Complain about this comment
#256 Colonel
Where does it say in the Koran that women have to wear the burka? It's not in the edition I have. In fact I think Mohammad, in his wisdom, was personally against the wearing of these things.
Complain about this comment
"Wiped Off the Map"
It has been widely alleged in the media that Ahmadinejad, during a 2005 speech, stated that Israel should be "wiped off the map".[127][128] This phrase is an english idiomatic expression which implies physical destruction.[129] However, according to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement was inaccurately translated;[130] Cole suggests that a more accurate translation would be:
The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[131]
In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor and Israeli resident Ethan Bronner argued that Ahmadinejad had called for Israel to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole, Bronner stated:
But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.[132]
Despite these differences, Ethan Bronner does agree with Professor Cole that Ahmadinejad did not use the word "Israel" (but rather "regime over Jerusalem") and also did not use the word "map" (but rather "page(s) of time").[133][134] Emphasizing these points of agreement, Jonathon Steele from the Guardian concludes that "experts confirm that Iran's president did not call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'". [135] Futhermore, Steele sites a source at the BBC, as well as the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), supporting the following translation:
This regime that is occupying Jerusalem must be eliminated from the pages of history.[136]
While this translation is quite similar to Professor Cole's version, it does use the word "eliminated" rather than "vanish", which is consistent with Bronner's suggestion that an "active" verb would more accurately reflect the orginal Persian.[137]"
wiki
debate discussed.
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner (#260) "Second, do you believe that this war can be brought to a successful conclusion while Hamid Karzai remains in a position to undermine the NATO effort?"
First, you must define "successful conclusion." Action against al Qaeda has been successful, but may never be concluded.
As for Karzai, I think we just have to deal with him, and I defer to the President and his team to work it out. If I had the answer, I should be the Special Envoy for AfPak instead of Holbrooke.
Complain about this comment
Really?
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner (#260) "Third, given that the current forces are way, way too small for the job, where is America going to find the money, and troops, to get the job done?"
I refer you to the Frontline link in my post #235, and the link to Ambassador Richard Holbrooke within it. Here is an excerpt:
Frontline:
"Do you believe we're going to need more troops on the ground?"
Holbrooke:
"The president and his advisers are waiting for recommendations from the command, and it would be obviously premature of me to discuss any such issue. But I will say this: Our goal, whatever else is decided, will be to strengthen the Afghans' capability to defend themselves. That is the army and the police. And we all recognize that the police are the weak link in the security chain, and we have to refocus on them."
Here is a statement from NATO Secretary-General Rasmussen:
Rasmussen
Excerpt:
"I’m well aware that there is an increase in the number of people ... who are asking if the costs of our engagement in Afghanistan is too high," he told a conference of defence experts. "The costs of inaction would be far higher."
I'm waiting for the President's decision on how to proceed, which is expected soon. In the meantime, we can afford to maintain the force we have committed already.
Complain about this comment
232, fluffytale: remember the "thou shalt not bere false witness"
Accidental misspelling, Freudian slip, or deliberate? And how would you explain your sweet little old peace-and-justice-loving lady's bearing false witness in the kitchen? The mask cracked, revealing what some others already had suspicions about. It is just too too tempting for me to engage in here what bere was falsely accused of there.
Have at it.
Complain about this comment
264. Ed - Some of those are funny.
263 Gary: At 6:29pm on 13 Nov 2009, GH1618 wrote:
"First, you must define "successful conclusion." Action against al Qaeda has been successful, but may never be concluded."
I must say, this comment has me puzzled.
I would have thought the defining "successful conclusion" would be the capture, demonstrably fair trial, and (assuming a conviction) long, tedious, grindingly dull, pathetically-ordinary-and-therefore-humiliating incarceration of bin Laden.
E.g., Picture bin Laden having Kraft Dinner slopped into his pannikin in the prison cafeteria by an embezzler from Toledo, in the same line as some guy incarcerated for drug offenses, an arsonist, an armed robber, and a wife-murderer, in the sure knowledge that he would be making ladies' raincoats or license plates, and eating KD, boiled canned green beans, brussel sprouts and cold canned meat*, with no news or TV except endless re-runs of The Beverly Hillbillies or Laverne and Shirley, from now until eternity.
*I was going to say SPAM, but clearly that wouldn't be permitted.
A much lesser success would be capture, trial, and execution.
A still lesser success would be evidence of his death, howsoever caused.
Maybe another way of measuring "success" would be a reduction in terrorist attacks on western forces or civilian targets?
In any case, none of these things seems to have been achieved. It seems to me that AQ is still in business from the Magreb to Indonesia, and there are more numerous, and more diverse, threats of terrorism from religious extremists than ever.
_________
_________
"As for Karzai, I think we just have to deal with him, and I defer to the President and his team to work it out. If I had the answer, I should be the Special Envoy for AfPak instead of Holbrooke."
_________
"Deal with him"?
You mean like sending him to Diego Garcia for an indefinitely long holiday without a phone, a blackberry, or internet access?
The problem is that he keeps doing things that make our job harder. The corruption of the regime is one of the things that is simultaneously fueling Taliban recruitment, and undermining support for the war in the western democracies.
The way things are now, he says one thing to placate his western backers, and then turns around and does something else for local consumption, fobs us off with sugared words, and then does it again. And then there are his relatives ...
Deeds speak.
We're being played for rubes.
"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me".
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner (#267) "I would have thought the defining "successful conclusion" would be the capture, demonstrably fair trial, and (assuming a conviction) long, tedious, grindingly dull, pathetically-ordinary-and-therefore-humiliating incarceration of bin Laden."
No. That would be good, but our objective is the security of the US and its NATO allies, not personal revenge. If Osama bin Laden dies without notice in a hole somewhere in Pakistan (he may be dead already, for all I know), it's just as good. "Conclusion" suggests to me complete elimination of al Qaeda and any others who would follow in their footsteps. I don't think that is a likely outcome. Not in my lifetime, anyway.
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner (#267) "I was going to say SPAM, but clearly that wouldn't be permitted."
No. I'm sure it's not halal.
Complain about this comment
#244. AndreaNY: My, you are defensive! I didn't mention Fox but two rather specific broadcasters.
"Come on, now. Like there's really a difference."
So you concede that all of Fox News is anti-Obama and broadcasts misinformation to support its views. At least you're honest about it.
"Not defensive. Just tired of hearing it."
One should never tire of hearing the truth.
Complain about this comment
Interested Foreigner (#267) "We're being played for rubes."
PM Brown gave Karzai a stern admonition:
PM Brown on Karzai
Isn't this going to take care of the problem?
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner (#267) "In any case, none of these things seems to have been achieved. It seems to me that AQ is still in business from the Magreb to Indonesia, ...."
Here is a report from National Public Radio on progress being made against al Qaeda in the AfPak region. (February 2009)
If I have an infestation of cockroaches, I'm going to kill as many as I can, even if I know I cannot kill them all, and even if my neighbor down the street also has cockroaches.
Complain about this comment
271 Gary.
LOL.
And he's going to have to sit and face the corner for 5 minutes, too.
The key mistake is here:
"Whitehall officials said Brown's ultimatum did not imply a threatened withdrawal of British troops ..."
Maybe President Obama might wait until after the Afghan appointments are made before making any announcements concerning troop numbers.
______
On second thought, nah. There's no point.
Here we are doing the dance again:
Hoping Karzai will go forth and sin no more, but not daring to turn our backs for even a second.
Whether Rasmussen is right or not, you can't fight a war like that.
And it just isn't fair to ask families to put their sons' (and daughters') lives at risk on that basis.
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced: we simply can't fight a war tethered to a guy who we can't trust as far as we can spit.
Complain about this comment
272. Gary:
"If I have an infestation of cockroaches, I'm going to kill as many as I can, even if I know I cannot kill them all, and even if my neighbor down the street also has cockroaches."
________
Well, I agree with that, as far as it goes.
I would call the exTerminator (please cue Gov. Schwarzenegger), too.
But I might also spend some of my effort and resources figuring out where and how they were breeding, and if it might not be as effective to find a way to reduce their rate of reproduction before-the-fact, so there might not be so many of then to run around stomping on them after-the-fact. In fact, even if the bible says "thou shalt stomp on them, thirty fold, seventy fold, and even an hundred fold times", I might prefer to place greater reliance on scientific research, and possibly foster innovation. I might retain experts, and take their advice.
I'd also like to see if I couldn't avoid killing the lady bugs, bees, and spiders while I'm killing them. (Ditto on the study and scientific research)
And I'd look for methods of killing them that wouldn't necessarily require the demolition of the house.
And I might spend some time and effort trying to get the neighbour to co-operate in a common effort, too.
The former administration was big on the first point, but didn't seem to understand the last four points. I have higher hopes for President Obama.
Complain about this comment
197. At 09:12am on 13 Nov 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #193 and 194 “I never said Palin was qualified but she would be doing a better job than the clueless community orginizer.”
If you were a bit more like Obama, and thinking about things thoroughly before acting [in this case typing], you would have known that your original post would lead to something like the following:
“[President Obama] is an inept person who is lost without his teleprompter and does have the grace to listen to wiser men like Cheney and mcCaiin who are far wiser and more accomplished.
Sarah Palin with all her faults would be doing a better job.”
This opinion clearly constitutes a confession that the writer is impressed with wisdom, accomplishment, etc. far above his own of those persons mentioned. Given the lamentably low wisdom, moral character, etc. of those persons we must draw the inescapable conclusions about the writer of the above quote.
Complain about this comment
IF (#274) good points, all.
Complain about this comment
196. At 06:27am on 13 Nov 2009, KScurmudgeon wrote:
“…As nations, open democracies and world powers, the allies and the USA in particular are very badly equipped to deal in anyway with nationless movements like the Taliban or Al Qaida, and hardly able to have any lasting influence in places like Afghanistan, where too few put the notion of nationhood above local tribal interests….
…Iraqis, over in Mesopotamia, have an ancient tradition of central authority, reinforced rather strongly in the past couple of generations by dictatorial rule.
All they need is effective leadership - which will develop in time, I believe, although it is at least as likely to be harsh and partizan as popular….”
This is a good introduction to the perils of “nation building.” Specifically, you need suitable materials and workforce. With US help, the Koreans [post Korean War] were able to engage in nation building that propelled them in one generation from poor country to among the top 20 economies. In comparing Korea to Afghanistan [or Pakistan for that matter], consider the following:
1. Koreans already had a feeling of being one nation, one people.
2. Koreans believed in education and provided it to all their children.
3. Koreans had no organized saboteur force [except North Korea].
4. Koreans had a real national government [rather a dictatorial one].
5. Korean corruption existed but was controlled, or at least didn’t pose a threat.
6. Koreans did not subscribe to an intolerant religion or legal code.
7. Koreans to this day seek modernization and democracy, and seem to have attained it. They were not given it, they worked hard for it, and long may they enjoy it.
Now, as to Afghanistan or Pakistan, what have they attained since 1955?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
249. At 5:30pm on 13 Nov 2009, AndreaNY wrote:
“What a wonderful way of saying Obama was full of it during his campaign.
And, no, I don’t think McCain’s relevant at this point. At least not with respect to how Obama’s actions are being evaluated against his campaign promises.
When your rhetoric is as strong and deeply believed as Obama’s was, it doesn’t disappear from a voter’s mind once elected. His greatest strength was his ability to make people believe him. Their belief is what got him elected. They’re not going to suspend it now because it’s post-election. On the contrary.”
Do you remember George W. Bush’s promises? Do you remember his promise to be “unifier not a divider?” He left a much more divided country than he inherited, and turned the post 9/11 unity to political advantage. Shame on him and shame on those [FOX and friends I accuse you!] who continue the disunity campaign. “I hope he [President Obama] loses!” This means nothing less than “I hope America loses.” In my book that last is treason Mr. Limbaugh.
“Their belief is what got him elected. They're not going to suspend it now because it's post-election. On the contrary.” Now does this apply to GWB as well?
Complain about this comment
231. At 4:39pm on 13 Nov 2009, Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote:
198. At 09:59am on 13 Nov 2009, rodidog wrote:
The economy in recession is a national crisis. Planes used as flying bombs is a Terrorist attack, somewhat different I would think.
I take it you never turned on the television, read a newspaper or listened to the radio after September 11, 2001. The nation was in crisis due to a huge national security breach which precipitated a war. If you didn't know we were going to war from day one when the Pentagon got hit, you weren't paying attention. And with the exception of yourself, I think every American would consider that a national crisis.
I suppose I'm being a bit nit picky, but I would not describe a terroirst attack as if it were some misfourtune of circumstance.
----------------------------------
My apologies. Then how about his insider trading violations as concern Harken Energy Corporation?
From Campaign Watch dot org:
In 1990 Bush sold $828,560 worth of Harken stock just one week before the company stock posted unusually poor quarterly earnings and Harken stock plunged sharply. Shares lost more than 60% of their value over 6 months. When Bush sold his shares, he was a member of a company committee studying the effect of Harken's restructuring, a move to appease anxious creditors. According to documents on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, his position on the Harken committee gave Bush detailed knowledge of the company’s deteriorating financial condition. The SEC received word of Bush's trade eight months late.
On September 7, 2000, Associated Press reported that U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission documents newly released under the Freedom of Information act demonstrated that before he sold the stock, George W. Bush was fully aware that Harken was suffering from a severe cash crisis and was poised to lose millions.
Nice of you to post the allegations and forget to add the SEC conclusion to their investigation, which cleard Bush of any wrong doing or of any insider trading violations. Do you have another half truth you wish to throw against the wall?
----------------------------------------
I tried finding any proof of this and I came up empty. Would you care to source this allegation?
That would be the deductions taken directly out of military families benefits by the DoD that my sister, a US Army colonel, saw when in command of an American fort several years ago. The families complained and the military pointed out to the DoD, which took their marching orders from Donald Rumsfeld, who answered to George W. Bush, that a soldier, dead or alive, is still the property of the US military. Therefore, the US military is required to dispose of their property in an appropriate manner. The Joint Chiefs had been unaware that this had become DoD policy and nearly hit the roof. Another friend was at the meeting where Bush expressed his complete and utter disregard, giving in only when he was told that it was bad for moral.
It was reported, btw, but you'd have to read the Army Times. The mainstream media wasn't interested.
Perhaps you could provide a link since the Army Times does not seem to have any article on the subject in it's archives. Granted, it's no doubt my error in locating the article, but still...
As to your friends comments, it's nothing but hersay based on third party comments from people you say where there.
------------------------------------------------
How do you know George W. Bush showed up for his National Guard duties? Because he said so?
No, because the DoD did.
----------------------
It has nothing to do with Obama not releasing the information. It has to do with Harvard policy. No one's private information is to be made available. And that goes for every school - by law.
No it's not. Harvard can give out the information with the approval from the student.
-------------------
I'll respond to the rest later. I have to go.
Complain about this comment
Of course he is dithering. Instead of dealing with Afganistan, the economy,a budget-blowing government health plan, and rising unemployment, he runs off to the far east. The dithering on Afganistan reached new neights when he received the Peace Prize. Those crafty Nobel people played to his super ego and intentionally threw what you would call a spanner into the works. Have you forgotten that Afganistan was the war he was going to win? He picked his generals and now refuses to listen to them. All this business from our ambassador about Karzi's corrupt government is just blowing smoke. Corrupt is how the game is played in Afganistan. Obama should know how to deal with them, after all, he is the annointed one of the Chicago machine. Their stamp is on every important post filled by the president. His czars are Chicago grown. People in Chicago are like the people in Afganistan, if they want position, power, or even permission to operate there, the Chicago machine will have its hand out. Wake up Europe, most of the Americans mesmerized into voting for Obama are finally coming out of their deep sleep and seeing the light of day. Take off your rose-colored glasses and see the real man.
Complain about this comment
MS. Andrea in NYl,
I couldnt watch FOX for more than 5 minutes starting right after the 1980 election--it was obvious then that they had bias problems.
It has taken till today (the present) for MSNBC to become the "liberal news channel."
And Glenn Beck is scary insane (maybe sane and doing this for money only, but) and speaks like a Nazi.
How does one communicate FOX's monstrousness? If you don't get it now, maybe its because you are naive or you are not taking FOX seriously as a fringe right wing biased channel which (FOX) is rabidly conservative---not intellectually dispassionately conservative--
Not to mention (FOX)having a total lack of traditional journalistic (neutral) integrity. :)
Complain about this comment
In the US, some people have something to lose, and so there is more reason to be reasonable. We are not so willing to meet 72 virgins in heaven because we rather have hundreds of them right here.
With some of the radicals, there is no shortage of volunteers for this.
Maybe just as soon as one dies, another 2 take their place. I refuse to believe we are there for their own good. They don't want us there and we are the only people who want to be there. Imagine all is peaceful there for a day and order has been restored. How long before the ied's and and other explosives begin again. Can you say forever? Peace be with you... Santa will mow make rounds to Afghanistan.
Oh, I forgot we retired old saint nick. We will just have to invent another holiday, for the children, you know? I mean with most of their daddy's dead and all. No candy canes either, they are banned.(dangerous) Yes, no more gitmo, we will now transfer all the questionables over to the bases in Columbia. Where did we get that money from. Did we forget that we still have to rebuild Iraq? No we are still dithering on that. I wonder if the successful Israelites can give us an example of how we can domesticate and Christianize the Afghans, I mean with all their great examples of neighborly practices, they must know how. I just remembered first we get them to accept Jesus Christ and when they are busy praying, we wipe them out. It worked before. Caution is too expensive Mark, we can't wait until Karzai fails, we are going to recruit some rebels and eliminate Karzai, then we instate a provisional government, martial law and nato can keep the order.
Complain about this comment
#280 stellarBeloved,
I couldnt watch FOX for more than 5 minutes starting right after the 1980 election--it was obvious then that they had bias problems.
That's funny. While the rest of the nation couldn't watch FOX TV until 1986, when it first aired on Television, you claim you were watching it in 1980. FOX News, the cable channel people say has a conservative bias, first aired in 1996.
Complain about this comment
231. At 4:39pm on 13 Nov 2009, Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote:
Part 2.
As for his finances, those have been made available. Both he and his wife took out student loans only recently paid off. Honestly, Rodi, read a newspaper once in a while.
That's right. Michelle Obama claimed in 2009 that they had only recently paid off their student loans. The problem of course is that Harvard law school would have cost $75,000 and his loans were for roughly $40,000. Where did the rest of the money come from? Also, how and when did they pay off those school loans? As a U.S. Senate candidate Obama is required to declare any out-standing loans, he declared zero. The Obama campaign said he paid off those loans in 2004, supposedly, with the royalties from his books. So how did Obama pay-off his student loans in 2004 when he did not declare any income from his books until 2005?
-----------------------------
So many of the other half lived in middle class neighborhoods while attending private school in Hawaii. A man who somehow managed to pay his way through Columbia and Harvard with no help. A sad story of lifting ones self up if ever I heard one.
First, the "other half" is the middle class, or anyone else who isn't considered a member of the "born with a silver spoon in your mouth" club. Second, Hawaii has one of the worst public school systems in the country. If I lived there I'd send my kid to private school too. Even if I had to eat pasta every night and work double shifts.
Actually, the "other half" is in reference to the poor not the upper or middle class of society. These folks rarely have the opportunity of sending their kids to private school.
-----------------------------------------
Lastly, did you somehow manage to forget that Columbia and Harvard accept student loans as tuition? And in those days, the cost of tuition was not prohibitively high. I was in college in NYC at the same time as Obama. Columbia's tuition was around $5,700. Harvard was certainly more expensive for law school, but doable on student loans even today.
Nope, I'm just curious as to how his student loan of $40,000 paid for a $75,000 education. If he had access to other income, what was it? Apparently he had someone help him. Nothing wrong with that, but it smudges the image of making it on your own, don't you think?
Complain about this comment
i meant the 2000 election...so ...there.
Complain about this comment
About 10 or more years ago, there were many professionals that while already gainfully employed employed for a while,still had not paid any of their student loans, way past their grace periods. Doctors owing 200,000 dollars each. It wasn't until they began to receive notices about their licenses and possible fines that they then began paying back the money. It isn't that uncommon for people to default on loans. But when people accomplish their goals they sometimes forget to say thanks and then pay their helpers. I wonder if we made a list right now, who would be on it. Obama is an Idealist trapped in a democratic world. We really don't have a critical need to send any more soldiers to Afghanistan, what if any should be going there, it should be the allies. That would be the support that he spoke about at the UN summit. Because foreign conflicts should be avoided.
Complain about this comment
270. David_Cunard:
#244. AndreaNY: My, you are defensive! I didn't mention Fox but two rather specific broadcasters.
"Come on, now. Like there's really a difference."
So you concede that all of Fox News is anti-Obama and broadcasts misinformation to support its views. At least you're honest about it.
"Not defensive. Just tired of hearing it."
One should never tire of hearing the truth.
*************************
It's also the truth that it is common to hear people accusing others with whom they disagree of being brainwashed by Fox.
As for Fox, I'm not going to defend it or attack it. I don't think it's wrong, or unjust, for it to criticize Obama. That's not a punishable offense in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
280. stellarBeloved: "How does one communicate FOX's monstrousness? If you don't get it now, maybe its because you are naive or you are not taking FOX seriously as a fringe right wing biased channel which (FOX) is rabidly conservative---not intellectually dispassionately conservative--"
*****************
I am not naive, and I do not consider Fox monstrous or rabid. I don't watch it, but I am one of the lucky ones not incensed by its viewpoints. You are. It's your issue. Don't impugn me because I don't hate Fox.
As for "intellectually dispassionate" conservatives or liberals, there are few of them to be found.
Complain about this comment
286. At 05:12am on 15 Nov 2009, AndreaNY wrote:
“As for Fox, I'm not going to defend it or attack it. I don't think it's wrong, or unjust, for it to criticize Obama. That's not a punishable offense in my opinion.”
I can agree with you that people have a right to express alternative views. I see FOX as the right wing version of Michael Moore’s movies. One-sided, biased, or propaganda [take your pick], but definitely covered by the Constitutional protection of free speech and free press. What offends me about FOX news is the self-awarded designation of “fair and balanced” when it is pretty obvious that FOX is neither.
The next time you watch one of their “fair and balanced” reports on the Democrats or the administration, turn off the sound and watch their expressions and body language. Then turn on the sound and listen not to the words but to the intonations and sarcastic vocalizations. I will give you that CNN has a left leaning slant, but they are more sophisticated in their presentations and the personalities of the presenters, thus keeping it much less obvious. When CNN was new I hated watching them because their bias was just as crudely obvious as FOX’s is now.
It is the duty of a real American [as explained in my high school citizenship classes] to NOT swallow any party line or any single source of ideas, but to think about all sides of an issue and to make rational informed decisions based on the facts. Give equal weight to FOX and CNN then discard both and think for yourself.
287. At 05:23am on 15 Nov 2009, AndreaNY wrote:
“I am not naive, and I do not consider Fox monstrous or rabid. I don't watch it, but I am one of the lucky ones not incensed by its viewpoints.”
Well that sounds like a reasonable statement. Do you watch CNN? How do you feel about Michael Moore or other left wing commentators? Do you think that THEY are rabid? If you think they are rabid then you are obviously biased, at least insofar as your ability to recognize rabidity.
Complain about this comment
Its not an "issue" with me...I ...just ..cannot ..watch... it. (because it does seem "rabid"...and btw, your writings seem relatively dispassionate (I always regret this later)
You seem dispassionate...intellectual and conservative...and readable...
I'm in the center/left part of this group..., but there are very good writers here, also...very good writing exists on these blogs here.
Complain about this comment
To me dispassionate4 means calm ..NOT without passion.
Complain about this comment
As I belatedly peruse some of the comments here; I noted that there is actually one contributor that doesn't know the meaning of the verb troll nor what people are referring to when they call someone an (internet) troll. As a public service (however wasted it will undoubtedly be in regards to some of those such accused) but I thought it worth an addendum as hope springs eternal.
A troll is a person that trolls.
It has NOTHING to do with any ideology in particular however extreme excepting that the troller posts are repeated postings reflecting an oppositional ideology (towards SOMETHING presented or imagined to have been presented or simply as a politically based rhetoric to be spread on unrelated posts) not supported by rationality and seeks primarily to antagonize by attacking and insulting rather than by resorting to...valid reasoning. Imagine that.
The basic definition of trolling;
a. To fish for by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat.
b. To fish in by trailing a baited line: troll the lake for bass.
c. To trail (a baited line) in fishing.
2. Slang To patrol (an area) in search for someone or something
There is a point in trailing the baitfish. You want a fish to bite.
In regards to the internet; a troll is someone that appears to be 'trolling' a website or a chat board and displays strong oppositional opinion consistently, and consistently does NOT support his or her posted opinion with rational argument. Additionally the troll appears to be baiting people with whom he or disagrees for the purpose of starting an irrational argument; in the sense that he or she tends to attack and never responds to a disagreeing post with a rational argument but rather an insult to the poster that disagrees.
Complain about this comment
jcwd
I thought it was cause they hid under bridges and tried to attack every one;)
Complain about this comment
"in the sense that he or she tends to attack and never responds to a disagreeing post with a rational argument but rather an insult to the poster that disagrees."
lol true some did try to for a while but I think they gave up. others that you recognise have never even attempted to reply. just bring up something else so as to try to confuse their"opponent"
Complain about this comment
I worry that adding more troops to the equation will not be sufficient to stabilize things in Afghanistan: to effectively go that route would probably require several hundred thousand troops rather than an addition 40,000. Unfortunately we are the victim of George Bush II's optimism and enthusiasm for promoting democracy and trying to force-fed it to a "country" used to rule by a strong, centralized authority (be it the Taliban or a monarchy), high rates of corruption, and beset by internal ethnic/religious tensions. No surprise that the results are not what was expected.
My suggestion is to carve-out a number of autonomous regions within the country based on their ethnic identity and give them a great deal of self-rule. Many of the other ethnicities are not deeply involved in the conflict between the government/West (USA) on the one side and the Taliban/Al Al Qaeda on the other and have perhaps - more liberal attitudes to the west.
Pushtun - 40% of population - mostly concentrated in the South and East(several populations are found in northern cities due to the fact that the historical Afghan (Pushtun) kingship liked to station its brethren in the non-pushtun regions). This is where the heart of the fight is.
Tajik - 30% of population - speak Dari (dialect of persian) mostly located in a large swath from the west running northeast - by and large not causing any problems although development is being symied by corruption at the central government (which - of course - is dominated by Pushtuns).
Hazara - 10% of population - mostly Shia - speak Dari - smack dab in the middle of the country - horribly oppressed by the Taliban (as shia are seen as heretics). Asian in appearance.
Uzbek - 10% of population - speak Uzbek - located in the far north
There are several other groups that are smaller and may be harder to disaggregate:
Aimaq - 5% - nomadic - related to hazara but sunni - speak dari
Baluchi - 5% - speak baluchi - along southern border with Pakistan where they are fighting for autonomy
Turkmen - 5% - speak turkmen - in far north along border with Turkmenistan
Nuristani - 5% - collection of different ethnic groups speaking similar languages in the northern part near the border with Pakistan
This would enable the west to focus their military activies in those areas that have the least stability, decentralize (and downsize) the government, and let the various ethnic enclaves police their own. It is quite clear that the non-pushtun ethnic regions tend to be in the stable parts of the country and resent the central (pushtun dominated) government.
Our current one-size-fits-all approach does not seem to be working and the pushtun are the problem: they are able to maneuver freely due to their strong tribal loyalties and are subject to contagion from Pakistan (where much of the Taliban draws its reserves and administration) and where the US cannot and Pakistan will not go.
We may not be able to stabilize the entire country but lets stabilize at least part of it and see where we stand. And if we do decide to pullout, perhaps we will avoid a ethnic and religious civil war like we had after the Soviets pulled out.
Complain about this comment
294. At 11:51pm on 22 Nov 2009, rhomas wrote what I think is the most logical, dispassionate treatise on the issue ever written. I hope the US and allied governments see and consider something like this.
Complain about this comment
294,5
Seconded!
We have schools in Nuristan
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS