Obama Says He Intends to ‘Finish the Job’ in Afghanistan

[Bragi]

Source: NY Times

WASHINGTON — President Obama said on Tuesday that he will announce his decision on how many more troops to send to Afghanistan next week, and that it is his intention to “finish the job” that began with the overthrow of the Taliban government in the fall of 2001.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/us/politics/25policy.html?ref=global-home

---

What a sad, sad thing this is. Turns out you can't actually vote for peace in America and expect your vote to matter.

[YOY]

1. Define "finish the job".

I don't think the job is finishable as it stands now.

[Auggie]

8. Exactly

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

51. Hoping he defines it more clearly when he announces the decision on a troop increase

Unfortunately, that's not for a week and a half yet.

[YOY]

97. How will that "finish the job"?

The job cannot be finished.

And from your thread below you assume that leaving this shithole to it's own self destruction will cost more American lives...not too sure how that works.

This war just like Iraq is nothing more than a waste of money and lives. In a time when our economy needs jobs and investment we waste it on chasing boogie men in this waste of a territory. If some country wants to try to 'clean them up' let the Chinese do it. They have no qualms with killing everyone.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

102. The "job" could be defined in many different ways.

[YOY]

104. Try us.

n/t

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

106. Uhm, what?

As I said, the "job" could be defined in many different ways. For instance, the job could simply be defined exclusively as eliminating the al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan, or it could be broader and include combatting the Taliban. Another example is that the job could focus nearly exclusively on training Afghan security forces, which seems to be the route that the British are currently favoring.

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

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

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

154. Alliances change.

[YOY]

199. Yes now...when it is properly defined (if ever) would you care to bet some money to its success?

You seem quite certain that this is a good move regardless of whatever the "job" may be.

Once I have seen it myself, I would like to make a wager on this.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

211. Quite frankly, I'm not sure what move the Obama Administration is making

If the early reports are accurate (and who really knows?) than the plan they're proposing has some serious flaws. It won't secure the urban centers and many Taliban fighters are likely to escape the targeted areas, just as they've done in Pakistan. The plus side is that it feeds off of what Pakistan is already doing, increasing the likelihood of stability in that country. Where it leaves Afghanistan though is questionable.

[MichiganVote]

224. Ahhhh...the scent of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney logic wafts our way again.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

227. Can we discuss these issues based on their own merits or is that too much to ask?

[bejamin wood]

217. I hope he doesn't mean

shopping malls and bake sales. I hope the best for those suffering, but I'm no fool. It took a lot of blood just to get where we are today and we have a long way to go.

[Deja Q]

225. He didn't often define much on the campaign trail. Why should he start now?

[AngryAmish]

133. In professional wrestling parlance, it means to cripple someone forever

Many times a wrestler is hurt, wants some time off or is leaving the territory, he will get jumped by a group of wrestlers and "taken out".

So a few weeks or more later, he comes back, vowing revenge, stating "You didn't finish the job!" Then the revenge storyline plays out.

[IndianaGreen]

138. Get more people killed for nothing!

[saigon68]

253. Good for Capitalist Profits tho

Never ending War

[Demeter]

139. Self-Immolation

Between the economy, letting the war criminals and their coup stand including all the Constitutional violations, and keeping all the wars hot, Obama is toast. And it hasn't even been a year.

That's what I call over-achievement. Even Boy George took longer.

[AlbertCat]

149. Even Boy George took longer.

No he didn't. It's way past Sept 11!

Still, Dems in charge today...SUCK. What a bunch of mealy mouth fakers and spineless egotists! I'm not inclined to vote for any of them again...except that Repugs are even worse.

[JCMach1]

177. Which job is this exactly? I think I sense mission creep... no doubt Repugs after the speech

will scream NATION BUILDING, NATION BUILDING,,,


:grr: on both counts

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

198. lol Actually, more ambiguous than "winning."

He's so good with his wordplay.

[bdamomma]

205. finish the job????? what job? of more US troops and civilians

being killed in a corrupt country? Russia made the big mistake of going up against Afghanistan war lords and look at what happened to their country, the same will happen to us. Don't we ever learn??

[Lorien]

226. The Soviets tried that already

nothing to be learned from history, eh?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

228. Fine, let's compare and contrast

In the Soviet invasion, the West funded the mujahideen with state of the art missiles. Today, no nation is providing that level of support to the Taliban.

Now you try one.

[Lorien]

232. So you're saying that "we won" that time, and it can be

done again? We helped keep an invader OUT, now we're the invader, and they are fighting us with weapons that others-like those in the UAE- are providing (which often means that they came from the US). How is that unlike the previous situation?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

234. No, what I'm saying is that you're comparing apples to oranges

For as many similarities as there might be in each of the cases you mentioned, there are at least twice as many differences.

Also, what is the modern equivelant of the Stinger missiles the Mujahideen were supplied with in the 1980s? As far as state of the art weaponry is concerned, there isn't one. Their most effective weapon, the roadside bomb, is a hodgepodge piece of machinery which is highly unlikely to turn the tide of this war (it certainly didn't in Iraq, where it was used far more effectively than the Taliban have managed to pull off).

[Skittles]

233. see, there is a finite number of Taliban / terrorists, YOY

once we wipe them out, there will be glorious democracy and Walmarts in Afghanistan

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

242. Not sure the troop increase will be based on that logic.

[AndyA]

2. Thanks for the "change" Obama. Not liking a lot of what I see so far. n/m

[Systematic Chaos]

210. +1,000

:(

[Kitsune]

3. Finish the Unfinishable Job.

Goddamn brilliant.

[saigon68]

23. Say hello to the One Term President

[msongs]

4. the job is "complete withdrawal of all us forces"...right? nt

[Bobbieo]

9. Is there such a thing as 'peace' in the world ?

It seems that one group is always fighting another group and it has always been that way.

[chimpymustgo]

40. Our Nobel PEACE prize winner. How many lambs sent to slaughter?

What a tool.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

52. In his defense, simply packing up and going home

will almost certainly not end the bloodshed - whether American or Afghani.

[Dr Fate]

55. "We have to fight them over there so we wont have to fight them over here."

Sounds like something Rush Limbaugh might say.

What bloodshed in America as a result of pulling out are you talking about?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

56. The inevitable reconstituting of al-Qaeda's camps if we were to pull out.

[Dr Fate]

57. Sounds like another "centrist" being wrong about everything again.

What do you mean "we"- are you stationed over there?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

60. Sounds like you can't refute my conclusion.

[Dr Fate]

64. Sounds like you cant back up your "conclusion "- all I see is Bush/Rush/"centrist" talking points.

RW talking points can be refuted simply by pointing out that they are RW talking points.

The RW and their "centrist" allies have been wrong about EVERYTHING.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

65. You require a further explanation? How about this...

The Taliban were more than happy to open the door to al-Qaeda in the past, their leader has ties (through marriage) to bin Laden, and, on a whole, the Taliban have shown no real open hostility to al-Qaeda's presence. Draw your own conclusion.

[Dr Fate]

73. LOL! I require nothing from "centrists"- they have been 100% wrong about everything.

Now is no different.

Centrists said we needed to invade Iraq, centrists said we needed to invade Afghanistan. Centrists said we needed to support Bush's tax cuts to the rich, centrists said we needed to bail out banks, now centrists say we need to stay in Afghanistan and "fight them over there instead off over here."

LOL! "Centrists" say lots of things- and they are almost always wrong.

I have already drawn my conclusion- that being in Afghanistan is not keeping us safer and that we cannot afford it.

Your talking points explain nothing. Sounds like the same crap they have been saying on FOX news for years.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

78. Your blather about Centrists aside

you've failed to refute my argument about the likelihood of al-Qaeda reconstituting their training camps in Afghanistan if we were to withdraw. You can piss and moan about my supposed "talking points" but the fact of the matter if, you have nothing to say in response to them.

[pjt7]

81. 9 special force guy's, can take care

of al-queda in afgahn. Let's get real.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

85. Nine special forces guys with limited supplies, in unfamiliar terrain full of hostile locals

can sneak up on and take out over a hundred well armed militants?

[Dr Fate]

88. Let's make it 10. Are you available to sign up?

Or is all your "support" for war just more talking points?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

90. Make it fourteen and your suggestion would still be ridiculous.

[Dr Fate]

Yes- it is ridiculous to suggest that you yourself would actually fight in Afghanistan.

Conservatives and "centrists" only "support" war with talking points.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

98. Given the situation, a solution centered around a nine-man special forces unit is a huge longshot.

[Dr Fate]

105. But I'm asking when YOU are going to enlist. Or is your "support" like Rush's?

n/t

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

108. In other words, in hindsight, you realize how ineffective your proposal would really be

[Dr Fate]

111. Um, no. That was not my proposal. I was just jumping in order to establish your Chicken-Hawk status

n/t

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

113. Then what is your proposal? Because it's a lot easier to sit on the sidelines and cry foul

than it is to come up with a solution.

[Dr Fate]

118. It's actually lot easier for you to sit on the sidelines and cry "more war"

Than it is to actually fight in a war, much less come up with an actual solution.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

120. Again, what is your alternative proposal?

[Dr Fate]

127. Yours is the alternative, minority proposal, mine is mainstream sentiment.

End the wars overseas and start focusing on security at home and domestic issues.

This is what most people in the US want. It's only the "alternative" to what politicians, corporations and people on TV (AKA a small minority) want.

I'm through trusting centrists and conservatives- everything they have proposed has been wrong.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

134. Whether it's a minority view is less relevant than whether it's based on sound logic

The problem with the course you propose is, while we can certainly make improvements as far as security at home, it's difficult to do that abroad with still leaves the United States and its citizens in a bind. On top of which, the question the lingers: what will the U.S.' response to the repeated attacks on its military and its civilians by al-Qaeda be? After all, if hitting the nerve center of the organization in an effective manner (and it has been effective, there's really no debate that al-Qaeda's leadership is hurting) is taken off the table, what's left?

[bahrbearian]

131. Alternative proposal

Exit Afghanistan, stop funding and arming foreign Militarily, militia's,and foreign fighters (Bin Laden). And have a president that listens to briefings and acts upon them. Stop trying to control the oil Fields and oil highways, by becoming energy independent. Kind of like the Carter Doctrine.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

135. If that occured on a whole, I'd be all for it

but I know that it won't. At best, only one of those step would be fulfilled - our withdrawal from Afghanistan - and we'd be in the same boat though with al-Qaeda having their playground back.

[C_Lawyer09]

191. "Carter Doctrine"

Hate to break it to you, but the genius that created the currently used "containment Doctrine" that was the actual foundation of the Iraqi invasion, was President Carters NSA, Zbigniew Brzezinski. So while Carter was "technically" for energy independence, he certainly did not have a hands off foreign policy. As evidenced by the horrific planning of the Iranian hostage rescue, which lost him the election and gave Reagan all sorts of un-earned kudos.

[clixtox]

180. No kidding! You've obviously perfected that ploy!

What's your solution/proposal look like, what is it going to take to "finish the job", in your estimation?

One or two sentence posts, ad infinitum, provoking other DU posters is just rude and trollishly embroiling.

Add something to the thread, don't waste your time and the time and energy of anyone else with your games.

Please...

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

196. A bit hard to know who you're responding to this far in the thread

clixtox, but in case it's me, I'll go ahead and respond. The best solution I see couples securing the heavily populated, urban areas with reaching out to the less hardline elements of the Taliban (thus fracturing the movement). Generally speaking, it would look very similar to the path that was persued, with success, in Iraq. It's a longer term strategy than Obama seems able to accept, unfortunately, but in the long run I do believe it would be the most effective.

[pjt7]

114. "you take the skyway"

I am being ridiculous, suggesting 9 special forces should take care of the "100" Al-queda in Afghan.

Let's say 1,000+ should be there, with the attack drones @ their sevice. That could easily do it.

30,000+ new soldiers, doesn't make any sense.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

121. It does if you're taking on more than just al-Qaeda.

[pjt7]

124. So we are taking on regular Afhgan folks?

Wow.. what a F-d up Country we have become.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

125. Not sure if the Taliban qualify as "regular Afghan folks"

In some instances, that might be a fair characterization, but certainly not in all, or even most.

[sendero]

248. No more than the idea..

... that somehow 140,000 troops are required for this nonsense.

You pussies who tremble in your boots over "al-queida" crack me up. Go hide under your mommy's skirt you fucking coward.

You were the same pussies who trembled over a washed up has been tin pot dictator that we created, named Saddam. People who were scared of him are beyond cowards, they were maggots.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

250. Ah, generalizations.

Actually, I was strongly opposed to the invasion of Iraq and was very active in my local anti-war movement from midway through 2002 until around 2006. Nice try though, really. The namecalling was an especially pleasant touch.

Happy Thanksgiving.

P.S. How many Americans must a terrorist organization kill before you decide to start taking it seriously?

[pjt7]

92. we have zombie planes

dropping bombs on these folks.

yeah, I think 9 of them could take care of Al-queda for the next 5 years.

[Dr Fate]

83. Your conserva-centrist blather about supporting wars based on lies aside....

You have failed to even give me an argument to refute- just the "fight them over there..." argument you could have heard on the O'Reilly factor, or from Joe Lieberman.

I dont believe that devastation against the USA is "inevitable" if our resources are spent more wisely, here at home.

In other words, I dont trust "centrists" and conservatives who tell me other wise. They have not been correct yet. Just like they are incorrect now.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

89. What lies are those, if I may ask?

And again, where is your response to my argument about the likelihood of al-Qaeda reconstituting their camps in Afghanistan?

[Dr Fate]

91. LOL! Are you arguing that Bush & Cheney never lied to me about Afghanistan?

LOL! You "centrists" really are easily fooled.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

95. I'm simply curious.

[Dr Fate]

100. For starters: Read your own posts if you want examples of half-truths and misinformation.

Hell- just read any thing that a "centrist" has said about just about anything.

I'm told this war is "necessary", I'm told we can "win" it- and I'm told we can afford it. All lies or at best, not the whole truth, not even counting the lies told by Bush/Cheney.

You wont be signing up anyway, so it's totally safe for you to "support" it either way.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

103. Why don't you provide some examples from my posts?

[Dr Fate]

110. You suggested that attacks on the U.S. will be "inevitable" w/o Cheney's war.

I dont think you are telling the truth. Guess what- I never thought Cheney was telling the truth when he said it either.

Even if you did make the statement in good faith, you wont convince me that Republicans and centrists have not lied about the "war on terror", which includes the waste in Afghanistan.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

119. Actually, what I said was

that if the United States withdraws, al-Qaeda will inevitably reconstitute their training camps there. Perhaps I should rephrase that and say "al-Qaeda will *almost inevitably* reconstitute their training camps there" since few things in this world are 100% certain. As it stands today though, there's a good likelihood that would be the result. And, to your point, if that were to happen, would Americans die in attacks? Almost certainly.

[Dr Fate]

123. I guess you better sign up then, those Americans need you to protect them.

I dont believe you, Cheney or Centrists when you all say that it is a certainty that Americans will die unless we keep on doing what conservatives & centrists say.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

126. Well, think it through and tell me what you think the logical results of withdrawal would be

[Dr Fate]

128. Think it through? LOL! You cant even give me details on how long and how much Afghan. will cost.

When I asked you for similar details, you were quite ambiguous. See post #58.

If I'm supposed to have all the details & logistics worked out, then why should the conserva-centrist postions of endless war have "we will just have to see" as their answer?

I asked you earlier to think it through and tell me exactly how much this will cost, and how many years it would take. You refused to answer.

I think you are the one who needs to "think this through" and come up with specifics, not me.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

136. I don't pretend to have a crystal ball that predicts the lengths or costs of wars

and anyone who does is a fool. The best answer I can give you is "years" and "hundreds of billions". Perhaps you can ask someone who's more interested in number crunching and they could narrow it down if this is honestly something you're interested in?

With that said, I'm simply asking you to take a stab at this and make an educated guess based on the available information. There's really no right or wrong answer so I'm not sure why you're so hesistant.

[freddie mertz]

208. Al-Qaeda has lots of "camps", in other countries...

And they are never likely to be so visible again as they were before 9/11 and our invasion.

You need to get updated regarding current tactics.

Decentralized locations, communication via the internets, essentially independent "cells" being nurtured in countless locations across the globe.

We are fighting a ghost over there.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

212. You're right to a degree

While you're right to a degree, nowhere has al-Qaeda been as free to operate as they were in Afghanistan prior to the invasion. That's awfully tough to me to ignore.

Secondly, while in many areas of the world your depiction of how al-Qaeda operates is accurate, the fact remains that bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, etc. are public figures for the movement whose influences are huge. While they're less free to operate openly today, that doesn't mean taking them down has no real significance in this fight (even for those who seem to have lost interest in holding them accountable for their attacks against the United States).

[freddie mertz]

220. Those guys are in Pakistan and likely to stay there...

They have eluded capture for eight years.

Pakistan worries me WAY more than Afghanistan.

Not that I have a clue what to do about it.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

221. That depends on how consistently they're getting hit within Pakistan

If the major offensive underway now is followed up by others in the spring, they'll have little choice but to be on the move. Seems wise that we also wage major offensives on the Afghan side of the border at that time, thus helping eliminate this game of cat and mouse currently underway.

I'm with you as far as Pakistan being more worrisome than Afghanistan. However, I see a lot more reasons for hope with regard to Pakistan than there has been at any other point in this war.

[ShortnFiery]

239. Newsflash: Osama Bin Laden is DEAD or not ambulatory. He's OUT of the mix.

Plus al Qaeda is de-centralized. Instead of wasting all our resources for instant "pleasures" of war death and destruction, we could BUILD UP our INTERNATIONAL POLICE efforts and truly track down "cells" all over the world.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

241. Why wouldn't we pursue both avenues?

There are extremely legitimate reasons to deny al-Qaeda a playground in Afghanistan as well as to hold al-Qaeda's leadership responsible for attacks against the United States.

[ShortnFiery]

245. Because it's a SOVEREIGN nation. Did you not watch and listen to the fact that the Taliban

are in a civil war with the CORRUPT Karzai Government? So essentially we are getting in the MIDDLE of a civil war between two BAD/CORRUPT sides. It's beyond time to pull out and let the NATIVES settle their differences.

Because you know what? The present government is staffed with THUGS. Think Saddam and The Shah with regard to Iraq and Iran respectively.

"We're in Afghanistan to keep our country safer is complete bullshit." Bob Baer, former ME CIA Agent

Watch this and get back with me? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjE2wMWMJwI&feature=player_embed

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

251. Not sure why you find the term civil war to be of the utmost importance, but okay.

And let's not pretend that, if we were to withdraw tomorrow, there'd be no direct negative consequences for the United States. Whenever I've attepted to discuss them with people on these boards, no one who favors withdrawal is willing to consider those. They're only willing to look as far as the immediate decrease in casualties and not to look further down the road. It's shortsighted and pathetic. We're smarter than this.

[Flaneur]

257. Yes, we are smarter than throwing billions away chasing ghosts.

Or at least I thought we were.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

259. Ghosts aren't real, al-Qaeda's leadership is.

[ShortnFiery]

238. But the MIC won't be able to bilk us taxpayers for TRILLIONS of dollars over the years if

they don't have "a specific country" to drop all their pretty munitions on and/or war profiteering contractors who now OUTNUMBER the military troops in Afghanistan. Therefore, we have to send underpaid youth into the meat-grinder ... to make our Privatized Corporations of War more FAT and SASSY. :puke:

[pjt7]

77. Al-queda is smal time in Afghan

SMA.. double L.

this is about heroin, gaspipelines & keeping the war machine alive. don't kid yourself.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

80. al-Qaeda didn't take serious hits in terms of funding and manpower out of the clear blue sky

These have been the results of our policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. To reverse those policies pretty much ensures al-Qaeda's growth.

[tekisui]

143. Wait. So you thing we should just set up there permanently?

Because that is what it would take. That argument has no expiration date. Every 6 months just say, "You see how fuck up it is? It will just get worse if we leave!"

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

145. Definitely not.

and, I've got to say, I disagree with your assessment that that's "what it would take" for a stable, functioning Afghanistan to arise. Quite frankly, some of the most logical steps for creating stability in Afghanistan haven't even been taken yet, at least not on a widespread scale, so it's premature to declare to we've tried our best, things didn't work out, so we should pack it up and admit defeat. A prime example is a widespread effort to split fracture the Taliban by bring some elements of it into the fold while isolating the hardliners.

[fascisthunter]

147. Oil Pipeline... THAT is what we are fighting for

The Soviets tried and failed miserably.... in fact, it is part of the reason their country went bust and communism fell. They placed too much emphasis on their military might, and now the fool in the White House is doing the same.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

148. There are important differences between now and then though, don't you think?

[fascisthunter]

150. hahahahah,no...not really

I'm gonna tell you this right now, there is NO WAY the US can tame Afghanistan, and it is due to a pipeline. And when more Americans realize why their friends, brothers, sisters, are dying for this pipeline, America will have a much larger problem at home.

Some can never learn... they can be clever, deceitful, great at spin, but one thing war mongers lack is a conscience. That conscience is what helped mankind survive and evolve unfortunately sociopaths who have no problem defending the indefensible are running the show and the rest of the fools just follow. There is no cure for a person without a conscience and very little reason to argue with them, because they are SICK.

Good luck trying to convince the rest here that this war is worth it... maybe it is, for the investor class. They'll be sorry too someday, if history repeats itself.

[pjt7]

152. great post

.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

153. No?

For instance, in the 1980s the Mujahideen were backed by a number of Western nations and Pakistan certainly wasn't waging major military campaigns against them. These aren't important differences in your eyes?

[dflprincess]

109. And Obama has said he's willing to "work with" the Taliban

(I think work with means pay off) provided they "renounce" terrorism. Of course, no mention has been made if renouncing terrorism means they stop terrorizing women. And I didn't hear anything about how we'll make sure they're not taking the bribes from us while still working with Al Qaeda.

Didn't I recently read something here about Obama saying there will be cuts in domestic spending next year. I hope he at least plans to make this little extravaganza of his "deficit neutral".

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

112. Those are legitimate concerns

Though, generally speaking, what's transpired in Iraq provides us with a framework for going forward with some success. The issue of women's rights will remain huge in Afghanistan, though I can't help but think that the country needs to be stabilized before that can be addressed effectively.

[pundaint]

141. Let's deal in truth

The Taliban "government" offered to hand Osama over to a competent court. There is no comprehensive government in Afghanistan, and there hasn't been one in recorded history. When the Taliban was in power they did some things many would consider abominations. Same is true for the majority of the last 44 American administrations.

Their country, their business. As soon as our system delivers justice and prosperity to all Americans, we will be qualified to recommend an approach to others in the world.

We have no moral, or legal right to be there, and we continue to be lied to by aspects of our government about what's really going on there.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

146. There are folks who sincerely believe the Taliban

kept Usama under lock and key and meant it when they said they'd turn him over in exchange for evidence he was behind the crime (a little odd, because he was pretty eager to take credit), but when one considers that bin Laden and the rest of al-Qaeda's leadership was on the move during this period, it's pretty unlikely that that was the case. What's more likely is that they were attempting to prolong the inevitable.

[tekisui]

71. Not true.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

72. Would you mind elaborating?

[tekisui]

75. Your claim is without merit.

Second, the claim that a resurgent Taliban poses a threat to the west. Dr Sageman is adamant that the prospect of "deeply divided" Taliban forces retaking Kabul and returning to power in Afghanistan is "not a sure thing". Nor would a Taliban return to power "mean an automatic new sanctuary for al-Qaida." The relationship between the two organisations, he says, "has always been strained … indeed, al-Qaida has so far not returned to Taliban controlled areas in Afghanistan." It is a view shared, incidentally, by a senior member of the Obama administration, the national security adviser, General James Jones, who told CNN that "the al-Qaida presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country. No bases. No ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/26/afghanistan-al-qaida

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

84. Well, first off, "take my word for it" is hardly a convincing argument

Secondly, what makes you think the Taliban have to control Kabul in order for this to be an issue? I think we both know what the answer is: they don't, they simply have to have an area where their control is the secure.

Third, you're right in your analysis about where al-Qaeda is right now, most evidence indicates that they're in western Pakistan. However, as the pressure on militants in Pakistan increases (and let's keep in mind, it IS increasing) they're likely move to an area they feel is more secure. By removing the threat the U.S. military presence on the other side of the border provides, we'd be greatly increasing the likelihood that that's where they'd set up shop.

[tekisui]

86. God, are you really so scared of a hundred broke-ass

punks hiding in desert mountains? Seriously. They are broken. Every day we stay, we help to radicalize.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

93. They're on the defensive at this point, but why is that, do you suppose?

Did they just mismanage their checkbooks really badly these last few years or is it because we've been hammering them and their supply routes? Take that pressure off and they'll rebound.

[ronnie624]

204. Interesting article.

In the comments that follow, one reader makes reference to the larger geopolitical aims in the region, of which the intervention in Afghanistan is a part. Following the remark is a link to an informative essay which analyzes U.S. intervention in Afghanistan within its proper framework.

Those who allow cable 'news' to define reality for them are being misled, as one prominent poster on this thread amply demonstrates.

Thanks for the link.

[quakerboy]

174. How about the inevitable reconstitution of al-quaidas camps if we do not pull out?

Are there more or less members of al-quaida than when we started war on Afghanistan? Does the Taliban and thus by your proxy arguments control more or less of neighboring Pakistan than when we started war on Afghanistan.

Al-quaida has more, not less hiding places now. As we kill more and more people, there are more and more angry family members and friends ready to join up. In the mean time, our strength is depleted, our resources are depleted, our reputation is depleted. We are less and less able to deal with a crisis situation that becomes more and more likely.

The truth of this is that we could keep our troops in Afghanistan until the day the world ends, and it would not prevent al-quaida from doing their thing. But it does hinder us. At least if they concentrate in Afghanistan, we would know where they are.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

197. al-Qaeda has not reconstituted its camps in Afghanistan, so what your logic?

You're ignoring a few key facts. The first being that until very recently, Pakistan was doing very little to confront the militants along its borders with Afghanistan - so of course they were flourishing there for a time. However, is that really the case at the moment? Pakistan continues to wage a major offensive along the Afghan border in South Waziristan and is beginning to expand it further in what is theh greatest threat the Taliban have faced in a number of years.

Secondly, al-Qaeda is hurting. Your argument about family members joining up, etc. etc. might work for the Taliban, but all the evidence we have right now indicates that their manpower is low and they're hurting financially.

[beardown]

175. Domino part two

Yes, if we don't fight them there then all of SE Asia will fall to the Commies, oops, wrong enemy.

Yes, if we don't fight them there then all of SE Asia will fall to the terrorists, oops, wrong part of Asia.

Yes, if we don't fight them there then Iraq will use their nukes to attack us, oops, I guess the warmongers were 100 percent wrong on that one. Forget I mentioned Iraq.

Yes, if we don't fight them there then all of Afghanistan will fall to the terrorists. That's the ticket
Sorry, it's tough to sort out all of the bogus invasion and occupation reasons. After awhile they all blend in together.

Owl Kite-uh is already setup in Pakistan. Pakistan has nukes. We should be so lucky if Owl Kite-uh would take resources out of Pakistan and move them to Afghanistan. It's much better to get bombed by camels, instead of nukes.

Mindless repetition of right wing kill them all failed theories add nothing to the discussion. We lost in Viet Nam and the commies did not take over SE Asia. The CCCP fell without a single nuke being used against it despite decades of slobbering right wing war mongers saying that was the only way to defeat them. Iraq had no nukes. Afghanistan holds no more threat to America than any other place where a few dozen extremists can come up with a plan and the motivation to carry it out such as repeated near genocidal invasions and occupations by the US. You have more to fear from the growing number of right wing militias in America being fed by the very same fear mongering crap you're spewing here now.

He who defends everything defends nothing. The cost of occupying yet another nation and motivating yet another generation of people with a burning hatred of America more than outweighs any vaporous protection offered by your McCain Palin campaign slogan approach.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

213. You firmly believe that the United States could withdraw tomorrow

and al-Qaeda wouldn't reopen their camps. Would you mind explaining your logic?

[Flaneur]

256. You're taking the worst case scenario and calling it "inevitable."

For Al Qaeda training camps (oooh, scary!) to be reconstituted in Afghanistan, you would need:

1. Taliban would have to defeat the central government. By no means a given.

2. Taliban would have to decide that they enjoyed being invaded and deposed so much once that they want to do it again.

3. US would have to put away all its nice shiny drones and bombers.

Okay, your turn.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

260. Weigh the evidence and tell me what YOU think the most likely outcome would be

1) No, the Taliban would not have to "defeat the central government" before al-Qaeda would be able to reopen training camps in the country. All that they'd need is to control large swaths of the countryside and isolate the government in the highly populated areas.

2) No, the Taliban wouldn't "have to decide they enjoyed being invaded and deposed so much one that they want to do it again". And I think you know the reason why. When major powers withdraw in defeat, they don't come back. The U.S. withdrawing would clearly signal that the door has been swung wide open in Afghanistan and Islamic radicals again have free reign.

3) Drone attacks are often supplemented (sometimes heavily so) by intel. gathered on the ground (local sources, recon. missions). By withdrawing, we'd be severely undercutting the usefulness of these tools.

[bdamomma]

206. and we seem to be always involved.

just sucks.

[Delphinus]

5. ...

SHIT!

[tridim]

6. I suppose McCain's "100 years" of war would have been a better solution?

[Desertrose]

7. Of course not

But how exactly does Obama think he can finish a job that Russia, Britain,the Mongols & Alexander the Great couldn't manage to do?

[tridim]

10. Every possible choice he has can be defined as "finishing the job"

Every fucking one, even a complete pullout is "finishing the job".

Everyone is jumping the gun on this statement, as usual.

[Desertrose]

12. Not jumping the gun...

Just would like to know what he means by "finishing the job".


I truly hope you are right that he means pulling the troops out, I just have my doubts from what has taken place since the inauguration.

[treestar]

30. The speech includes an outline of an exit strategy

It's in the last paragraph of the article.

[Dr Fate]

50. More troops & more billions is not an exit- it's going further down the hole.

These billions would be better spent here in the USA.

An exit "strategy" is not what we need- a plain old exit would do just fine.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

54. Not sure the current situation is comparable

Past the fact the fact that all of these defeats took place in Afghanistan, there's not a lot of room for comparison.

[clixtox]

182. Says who? Link(s)? N/T

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

214. Well, take a look at them, side by side

Let's take the last major defeat in Afghanistan. Pakistan was a major ally of the Mujahideen, funneling them money, weapons, and fighters. Today, the Pakistani military is waging a major offensive against them. Or, in the 1980s, the United States was supplyiing these fighters with state of the art technology (i.e. Stinger missiles). Their access to today's modern weaponry is extremely limited. In ten years of fighting, the Soviets lost over 13,000 soldiers. In eight years we've lost less than 1,000. And this is just a start...

I assume these facts are all common knowledge regarding the Soviet invasion and our current occupation of Afghanistan. If you require links, let me know and I'll provide them.

[Bragi]

13. Dunno

Obama, like most Conmgressional dems, foolishly bought into this war because, post 9/11, they cravenly felt they had to be in favor of some war somewhere.

Personally, I hoped Obama backed this war for purely pragmatic political reasons, and would find ways to end it once he was elected by people who he knew wanted it ended.

Turned out I was wrong, and Obama is pro-war.

It's all very sad. I now expect that his war will undermine his Presidency, and he'll be a one-term President.

[pjt7]

32. good post

Obama has fooled many. Between this & backing all the criminals in Wall Street.. who is this guy?

[enlightenment]

15. How long will this take, do you think?

While he avoided any hints of the new troop levels he foresees in Afghanistan, the president signaled that he will not be talking about a short-term commitment but rather an effort muscular enough to “dismantle and degrade” the enemy and ensure that “Al Qaeda and its extremist allies cannot operate” in the region.

What does 'region' mean in that statement? Is that Afghanistan or does it include Pakistan? Or do we just chase them back and forth across the border - and for how long? For one year - or five - or ten? If he isn't talking about a 'short-term commitment' than what is he talking about?

This 'effort' is the same goal that has been in place since we started this mess - ensuring that the bad guys cannot operate 'in the region'. Is it somehow a better goal simply because a Democratic President is pushing it?

[Mithreal]

38. Obama, Better Than McCain. You win a red herring.

[MollieBradford]

254. yes, it reminds me of

Kerry, better than Bush. Some things never change.

[Dr Fate]

49. I'll bite. How many more years, and how many more billions are we to spend?

If you dont have specific, accurate answers for each, then I'll assume that you really have not thought this out very well.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

58. Wouldn't attempting to judge the exact number of years or potential dollars spent be a joke?

After all, wars hardly progress along a straight line that can be drawn out well in advance.

[Dr Fate]

76. In other words, the war mongers have not thought this through. n/t

n/t

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

96. In other words, it's nearly impossible to accurately predict.

[Dr Fate]

115. No need to predict the costs at all if we are not at war.

Sounds like you are willing to give the industrial military complex another blank check.

It's a very "centrist" approach, I'll give you that, but as usual, not a very well thought out one.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

122. Right, but there's no rewind button on this thing.

[Dr Fate]

130. No- just the good old "eject" button. n/t

n/t

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

137. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that that's without its consequences.

[martymar64]

165. A better question, what domestic items are you willing to give up to continue funding the war?

The EPA? The CDC? The FDA? Medicare? Education funding? Infrastructure job funding? Energy independence? Lowering the deficit or debt? Job creation? Pell Grants? Funding for universities? NASA? Head Start? Food Stamps? Social Security? Border Patrol?

Just what exactly are you willing to sacrifice here in the US?

The longer this war goes on, the less money there is for domestic use. How long do you think we can keep borrowing $ from China to fund this thing? Will you be willing to pay for the war when your taxes go up 100% because China called in its markers?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

215. I'm fine with paying more in taxes.

Though, frankly, I think there are other areas where money could be cut (foreign military assistance, for instance).

[phantom power]

11. Very Bad.

[Bobbieo]

14. Does this mean Obama will not seek re-election in 2012?

Sounds like it - he is burning his bridges!

[phantom power]

17. I can't imagine Obama deciding not to run in 2012.

I can imagine him not winning.

[Bobbieo]

20. I think he is smart enought to know that he may not win in 2012.

So why waste his time? H has already proven to the world a black man can become president of the United States.

[Bragi]

16. What's needed now is a HUGE anti-war rally in Washington

If a million of his supporters marched on the White House this weekend demanding he end rather than endorse this pointless war, maybe it would have an impact.

But this isn't going to happen, is it?

Instead, six months from now we'll be marching with signs demanding an end to "Obama's war."

This is just awful.

[Doctor_J]

29. Yeah, that worked so well last time

save your strength, buy a weapon & some ammo, & try to get a job in a civilized country.

[Bragi]

201. Actually, there's quite a big difference from last time

Last time, everyone in the White House knew that the protesters were never going to vote for them.

This time, everyone in the White House would know that the protesters are people who voted for and supported them last time, but who will not do so again if they continue on their pro-war path.



- B

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

63. To what end...?

What are the likely consequences of an American withdrawal at this time?

[tekisui]

79. Lives and money saved.

We are making it worse. I don't understand how the war defenders refuse to recognize this simple fact. Everything bad in Afghanistan is compounded by our presence.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

101. How so?

I'd argue, instead, that this is the first time in a long time that the Taliban have been forced onto the defensive to any significant degree.

[bdamomma]

207. and what no media coverage as usual if this was to take place.

[Mari333]

18. well I wont vote for him if he sends in troops.

might not mean much, just my vote. But he will not get it.

[ixion]

24. me, either

I couldn't vote for him in good conscience.

[jonnyblitz]

107. nor will I. nt

[beyond cynical]

202. Well, why did you vote for him the first time?

After all, he told you exactly what he was going to do.

"As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations."

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_t...

[endless october]

19. how many empires have collapsed over war with Afghanistan?

i'm willing to give him time for orderly withdrawal, but i don't see a good exit plan being proposed here.

[Bragi]

21. No need for clarification: he's talking about "more troops"

There is no doubt but that the only thing on the table for him is "how many more troops", not whether he will send in more troops, let alone de-escalate this war.

More troops means more repression to continue to prop up the corrupt, undemocratic, toady Karzai government set up by Bush.

This is awful.

[saigon68]

25. Lots more Gold Star Mothers on the Docket

Lots more Capitalist Industrialists FEEDING AT THE PUBLIC TROUGH

[Dover]

Afghanistan - the "job" is being discussed here >>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7079303

[Dover]

22. dupe post..n/t

[babydollhead]

26. To the Streets!!!

[Bobbieo]

31. I think he could walk away 100 years ago but circumstances have greatly changed.

Maybe Bush was right on this one - you fight the war there or over here in America and throughout the world. Shit still happens!!!!

[winyanstaz]

39. oh baloney......

Exactly how is it that we are fighting "terrorism" over in Afganistan?
How many Afganistan goat herders have attacked America this century anyways?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

69. The Taliban have a track record of empathy for al-Qaeda that one cannot ignore.

[winyanstaz]

168. Al Qaeda? sheesh......I think you spelled that wrong...

It should be spelled Al Ciada.

[pjt7]

34. to the voting both

& backing a legit 3rd party team.

[Sky Masterson]

27. God dammit!

This angers me..

[pjt7]

28. & the job is to keep up the Heroin trade &

get the gas pipeline built?

We are so much better than this.

[boomerbust]

33. What if

They get Bin Laden? Just sayin.

[phantom power]

37. What if we do?

We "got" Hussein years ago, and yet... there we are.

[Bobbieo]

45. If we had left Hussein alone we might not be in Afghanistan today

[Dover]

35. I DARE the mainstream media and Obama to discuss our Silk Road Policy

as a whole, our foreign energy policies as they relate to Afghanistan, our American interests in pipelines/gas/oil and other resources in the region, etc. "Terrorists" refers to
ANYONE (or any country) opposed to these policies.

So much for independence from foreign oil/gas resources and for transparency with the American public. We are not permitted to have a voice or to make an informed collective decision in the matter:



1999 Version:
http://webu2.upmf-grenoble.fr/espace-europe/publication...

109th CONGRESS

2d Session



S. 2749



To update the Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999 to modify targeting of assistance in order to support the economic and political independence of the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus in recognition of political and economic changes in these regions since enactment of the original legislation.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES


May 4, 2006
Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. KYL, and Mrs. HUTCHISON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations



http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-...


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


A BILL

To update the Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999 to modify targeting of assistance in order to support the economic and political independence of the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus in recognition of political and economic changes in these regions since enactment of the original legislation.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Silk Road Strategy Act of 2006'.

(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. Definitions.

TITLE I--UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD COUNTRIES IN CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

Sec. 101. Relationship between the United States and the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

Sec. 102. Protecting United States business abroad.

TITLE II--PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF UNITED STATES INTERESTS IN CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

Sec. 201. Relationships between the United States and the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus since passage of the Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999.

Sec. 202. United States interests in the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

Sec. 203. Sense of Congress on safeguarding of United States interests in the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS- The term `Central Asia and the South Caucasus' means the area including the countries of Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

TITLE I--UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD COUNTRIES IN CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

SEC. 101. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE COUNTRIES OF CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS.

(a) In General- The United States has significant long-term interests in the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus. These interests concern security, economic development, energy, and human rights. Accordingly, it is the policy of the United States to seek political and economic stability in the social development of, and cooperative relationships with, the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus, including by providing assistance in accordance with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.).

(b) Democracy, Tolerance, and the Development of Civil Society- It is the policy of the United States to promote independent, democratic government and the protection of human rights, tolerance, and pluralism in Central Asia and the South Caucasus within the overall framework of United States national interests, including the global war on terrorism, counterproliferation efforts, the fight against extremism and ethnic and religious fanaticism, and energy security.

(c) Conflict Resolution- It is the policy of the United States to aid in the resolution of ethnic, religious, interstate, and intraregional conflicts and to support political, economic, and security cooperation in Central Asia and the South Caucasus in the interest of fostering regional stability, development of the rule of law, cooperation based on free markets supported by strong institutions, and economic interdependence.

(d) Economic Assistance- It is the policy of the United States to reduce poverty in Central Asia and the South Caucasus through economic growth, promoting sustainable development through private investment in all economic sectors, including agriculture, education, private sector development, and capacity-building.

(e) Development of Infrastructure- It is the policy of the United States to aid in the development of infrastructure in Central Asia and the South Caucasus for energy and energy transit, communications, transportation, and health and human services.

(f) Defense and Border Control Assistance- It is the policy of the United States to assist the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus in developing indigenous defense capabilities, securing borders, and implementing effective controls to prevent the proliferation of materials related to weapons of mass destruction and trafficking in conventional weapons, persons, and narcotics.

SEC. 102. PROTECTING UNITED STATES BUSINESS ABROAD.

Consistent with the purposes of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, it is the policy of the United States to promote and protect the interests of United States businesses and investments in Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

TITLE II--PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF UNITED STATES INTERESTS IN CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

SEC. 201. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE COUNTRIES OF CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS SINCE PASSAGE OF THE SILK ROAD STRATEGY ACT OF 1999.

(a) In General- Since the enactment of the Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999 (22 U.S.C. 2296 et seq.), significant changes have occurred to the political, economic, and security conditions in Central Asia and the South Caucasus, requiring modifications to United States policy toward the countries in the region in order to protect and promote United States interests.

(b) Findings- Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Since September 11, 2001, the need for mutually beneficial security cooperation between the United States and the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus has grown, while the United States has come to view democratization of the countries in the region as essential to enhanced security.

(2) Such development features popular sovereignty, institutional checks and balances, and a vibrant civil society. These in turn require a civil administration that is competent, honest, respectful of citizens' rights, and sensitive to the needs of a market economy.

(3) The liberation of Afghanistan from Taliban misrule and the new course in Afghanistan toward political and economic openness make possible the country's reintegration into Central Asia.

(4) The ouster of the Taliban from Afghanistan has diminished threats to that country's neighbors in Central Asia, allowing for accelerated progress toward democracy, open economies, and the rule of law across the region. Afghanistan's embrace of popular sovereignty and political pluralism demonstrates the universal applicability of these values.

(5) The Governments of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, which have contributed to United States military deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo, are key United States partners in diversification of energy sources and transportation routes, enhancing and contributing to United States energy and security interests.

(6) In recognition of global and regional threats to stability, prosperity, and democracy in Afghanistan, including terrorism, political-religious extremism, and production and trafficking of narcotics, and in recognition of Afghanistan's geographic location and cultural and historical identity, Afghanistan should be considered to be among the countries of Central Asia, and not separate from them.

(7) In recognition of security cooperation from the Government of Kazakhstan, including deployment of the Kazakhstan contingent in Iraq, progress toward a market economy, United States business participation in energy and infrastructure development in Kazakhstan, and an ongoing Government of Kazakhstan policy of ethnic and religious tolerance, a relationship with Kazakhstan is of high importance to the United States.

(8) The 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia, the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and the 2005 Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan demonstrate the essentialness of steady progress toward democracy and the rule of law. While these revolutions resulted in the ouster of corrupt and ineffective regimes by largely peaceful protest movements, the long-term interests of security, stability, good governance, and economic growth are better served by evolutionary democratization.

(9) Relations between the United States and the Republic of Kyrgyzstan are of great importance, in particular in view of the democratic developments in that country and in light of the location of a United States military base at the Manas Airport near Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.

(10) The President of Turkmenistan, Saparmurat Niyazov, engages in persistent gross violations of human rights, including the suppression of democratic and religious freedoms, brutality, and leads a government that lacks accountability and rejects the rule of law.

(11) There has been a deterioration of democratic freedoms, rule of law, norms of democracy, and human rights in Uzbekistan, as well as a deterioration of relations between the Governments of the United States and Uzbekistan.

(12) The President of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, engages in continued gross violations of human rights, including the killing of hundreds of protestors at a rally in Andijan in 2005.

(13) The pressing need for diversification of energy resources makes access to Central Asian and Caspian Sea oil and gas resources a high energy security priority of the United States.

(14) The dangerous and destabilizing policy statements of the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and actions by the Islamic Republic of Iran in the area of nuclear power, including uranium enrichment, threaten international security in general and regional security in Europe and Asia in particular.

SEC. 202. UNITED STATES INTERESTS IN THE COUNTRIES OF CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The economic and political stability of the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus has a direct impact on United States interests.

(2) Stability, democratic development, protection of property rights, including mineral rights, and rule of law in countries with valuable energy resources and infrastructure, including Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan, are important to safeguard United States energy security.

(3) Preventing any other country from establishing a monopoly on energy resources or energy transport infrastructure in the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus that may restrict United States access to energy resources is important to the energy security of the United States and other consumers of energy in the developed and developing world.

(4) Extensive trade relations with the energy-producing and energy-transporting states of Central Asia and the South Caucasus will enhance United States access to diversified energy resources, thereby strengthening United States energy security, as well as that of energy consumers in developed and developing countries.

(5) Stability in the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus is important to the security interests of the United States.

(6) In order for the United States to maintain bases for its troops in the proximity of the military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States should seek to maintain good relations with the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

(7) It is in the interest of the United States and the global war on terror for the United States to maintain friendly relations with Muslim states in Central Asia and the South Caucasus that promote democracy, open economies, and the rule of law in the region.

(8) It is in the interest of the United States to make any and all efforts to prevent the proliferation of materials for weapons of mass destruction and the trafficking in narcotics and persons, much of which can be attributed to porous borders and insufficient security between the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

SEC. 203. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON SAFEGUARDING OF UNITED STATES INTERESTS IN THE COUNTRIES OF CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS.

(a) Promotion of Democracy, Tolerance, and the Development of Civil Society- It is the sense of Congress that political legitimacy is founded upon popular sovereignty and is critical to stability, that key components of political legitimacy are regular elections, and that the United States Government should engage in the following programs and activities designed to promote democracy, tolerance, and the development of civil society in Central Asia and the South Caucasus:

(1) Support for free and fair elections, including the formation of election bodies that are broadly representative of the political spectrum and the maintenance of equal conditions for candidates and parties.

(2) Instruct the United States delegation to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and to other international bodies to resist efforts by some member states to undercut the role of OSCE election monitoring conducted by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and to aggressively promote the role of independent and local election monitors.

(3) Support for the development of independent media outlets, including print, radio, television, and Internet, and the provision of authoritative news and a broader range of media options than is currently available.

(4) Support for satellite television broadcasting into Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Iran in the native languages of these countries through Radio Freedom/Radio Liberty, Radio Farda, Al Alam, and independent radio and television broadcasters in the United States and Europe, including in the languages of Azerbaijani, Pashtun, Persian, Uzbek, and Turkmen, specifically to inform the populations in those countries of the ideas and values of freedom, democracy, and human rights and development issues relating to their diasporas in the United States.

(5) Assistance in the establishment of regional academic programs to train civil servants in modern systems and principles of good governance, including the rule of law, transparency, conduct of elections, respect for citizens' rights, and the needs of a market economy.

(6) Support for the establishment of reputable think tanks, independent public policy research organizations, and centers for strategic and economic studies in the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

(7) Support for the development of separation of powers, specifically the emergence of independent legislative and judicial branches of government.

(b) Conflict Resolution- It is the sense of Congress that the United States Government should engage in the following programs and activities designed to promote conflict resolution in Central Asia and the South Caucasus:

(1) Active assistance in the resolution of regional conflicts and the removal of impediments to cross-border commerce.

(2) Recognizing that China and Russia are neighbors and regional powers of Central Asia and, in the case of Russia, of the South Caucasus, and that those countries have in the past taken steps at odds with United States security interests, such as in the case of curbing the United States military presence in Uzbekistan, the continuation and expansion of a strategic dialogue with Russia and China, including United States participation as an observer in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) for the purpose of promoting stability and security in the region.

(3) Acknowledgment of the importance of maintaining peace in the Caspian region for the prosperity and long-term stability of the countries in greater Central Asia, including calling on the Caspian littoral nations, including Iran, to step up maritime border delineation and demilitarization efforts, making the Caspian Sea a zone characterized by peace and cooperation.

(4) Encouragement of conflict settlement in the South Caucasus to further increase trade, specifically by supporting the restoration, expansion, and usage of the railroad through the Georgian region of Abkhazia, the highway through the Georgian region of South Ossetia, and the `Road of Peace' through the Azerbaijani region of Nagorno-Karabakh.

(5) Calling on the Governments of Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan to resolve the outstanding debt issue, which is hindering cross-border cooperation and development, and to jointly develop the Kyapaz (Serdar) disputed offshore oil field, which would contribute to the peace and stability of the Caspian region.

(6) Calling on the governments of the five littoral states of the Caspian Sea, Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan, to establish a legal order demarcating the seabed and its resources based on a national sector regime, one that goes beyond the Iranian-Soviet treaties of 1921 and 1940, which defined rules for shipping and fishing, but not for oil and gas exploration and development.

(7) Assistance in the removal of legal and institutional barriers to continental and regional trade and harmonization of border and tariff regimes, including improved mechanisms for transit through Pakistan to Afghanistan and other countries in Central Asia, and the recognition of Turkey as a crucial energy transit and consumer country, vital for the successful development of large-scale energy infrastructure and cross-border projects.

(c) Economic Cooperation and International Trade- It is the sense of Congress that the United States Government should engage in the following programs and activities designed to promote economic cooperation and international trade with countries in Central Asia and the South Caucasus:

(1) Assistance in accelerating the broad and equitable privatization of state enterprises in a manner that does not promote oligarchical rule and the deregulation of national economies in a manner that allows equal access to nonresident companies to privatization procedures.

(2) Expansion of activity under the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA), including reducing barriers to trade and investment, protection of workers' and property rights, fostering an environment of transparency and predictability, encouraging private sector growth and foreign and domestic investment, and removing impediments to increased intraregional trade and investment, particularly with respect to Afghanistan.

(3) Support for the completion of the review process of the Export-Import Bank of the eligibility of countries in the region for financing under the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635 et seq.).

(4) The facilitation of greater access for Afghanistan and other countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia to loans from the Export-Import Bank.

(d) Economic Reform- It is the sense of Congress that the United States Government should engage in the following programs and activities designed to promote economic reform in Central Asia and the South Caucasus:

(1) Promotion of structural reforms in financial and banking institutions that increase transparency and efficiency and enhance macroeconomic stability.

(2) Promotion of the development of the Trans-Caspian Oil and Gas Pipelines (TCOP/TCGP), while encouraging the Governments of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and particularly Turkmenistan to improve their business climate and investor confidence by fully disclosing their internationally audited hydrocarbon reserves.

(3) In light of greatly increased revenues from energy exports and the related dangers of macroeconomic instability and economic overheating, the establishment of a bank, the Caspian Bank of Reconstruction and Development (CBRD), where excess revenues can be funneled to infrastructure development projects in the region, and the tasking of the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation with assisting in setting up and operating the bank.

(4) Support for countries in the region seeking qualification for Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) funds, including assistance in achieving necessary further reforms, recognizing that while Armenia and Georgia have qualified and signed compacts with the Millennium Challenge Corporation, other advanced economies of the region, such as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan, should be aided with more rapid improvement of their rankings to become first `threshold' and then `candidate' countries for purposes of such assistance.

(5) Support for countries in the region seeking accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), furnishing assistance to facilitate economic reform for countries in the region, and extension of unconditional and permanent nondiscriminatory treatment (permanent normal trade relations treatment) to countries in the region, especially to Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan.

(6) Encouraging governments of countries in Central Asia and the South Caucasus and United States businesses operating in the region to adhere to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), and in recognition that Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan have joined the EITI initiative, encouraging other countries of the region to follow suit.

(7) In conjunction with increasing transparency of energy-related payments and revenues by the governments of, and companies in, the Central Asia and South Caucasus region, encouraging geological data on all energy resources and assets in the region to be made available to better understand remaining reserves, which would stabilize the global energy markets.

(8) Promotion of antimonopoly initiatives, particularly to diversify transportation routes for hydrocarbon and electric energy, and promotion of competition in these sectors.

(e) Infrastructure Development- It is the sense of Congress that the United States Government should engage in the following programs and activities designed to promote infrastructure development in Central Asia and the South Caucasus:

(1) Assistance in the development of the infrastructure necessary for communications, transportation, education, health, and energy and trade on an east-west axis in order to build strong international relations and commerce between the countries in the South Caucasus and Central Asia region and the Euro-Atlantic community.

(2) Support for activities that promote the participation of United States businesses and investors in the planning, financing, and construction of infrastructure for communications, transportation, and trade, including aviation, highways, railroads, port facilities, shipping, banking, insurance, telecommunications networks, and gas and oil pipelines.

(3) Support for the development of physical infrastructure for continental and regional trade, including the completion of the crucial core road system in Afghanistan, the linking of other regional roads with the road system, and working with other donors to complete east-west and north-south transport corridors in the region.

(4) Support for the addition of a crucial rail link in Kazakhstan from Almaty to the port city of Aktau, which would allow tankers and cargo ships to transport crude oil and other goods across the Caspian to Baku, and from there to Europe through Georgia and Turkey; this east-west corridor, which is already partially financially supported by the European Union within the Transport Corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia (TRACECA) initiative, would greatly increase and accelerate cargo and container traffic across the Caspian Sea and from the greater Central Asian region.

(5) Support for the construction of energy transit infrastructure, including the Trans-Caspian Oil Pipeline (TCOP) in Kazakhstan, from Aktau to Baku, which would carry oil from the Karachaganak field, and the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline (TCGP), from Turkmenistan or neighboring areas of Kazakhstan to Baku, which would carry natural gas.

(f) Defense and Border Control Assistance- It is the sense of Congress that the United States Government should support regionwide initiatives in Central Asia and the South Caucasus to train and coordinate border control, law enforcement, and security forces between contiguous countries.

(g) Additional Mechanisms for Implementation of This Act and Achievement of Its Objectives- It is the sense of Congress that the United States Government should, for the purpose of further implementing, and achieving the objectives of, this Act, promote and support establishment of one or more of the following:

(1) A Silk Road Advisory Board, which would include experts with the necessary contacts and expertise in the region in sectors such as sustainable agricultural development, oil and gas extraction, energy transportation infrastructure planning and construction, democratic development, banking, finance, and legal reform.

(2) A specialized private sector energy consultancy, tasked with coordinating business community projects and promoting investment opportunities in trade as well as infrastructure for the production, transportation, and refining of energy and petrochemicals.

(3) An annual conference of the sponsors and beneficiaries of assistance provided pursuant to this Act to be held in conjunction with the annual United Nations Economic Council of Europe (UNECE) Energy Security Forum, which seeks to promote the security of energy supplies for all members of the Economic Council of Europe through well-balanced networks of energy transportation infrastructure, improvements in sustainable energy technology and efficiency, and through the integration of legal standards for transparent energy extraction, transportation, and pricing.
END

[Amonester]

171. And the Oligarchy counts on the poor youngster who can't pay for College

to enroll and risk his own life (and even lose it), for WHAT?

(Short answer):

Sec. 101. Relationship between the United States and the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

Sec. 102. Protecting United States business abroad.

And also, of course, the... pipeline$...

:grr:

The more things change, the more they remain the same (or get even worse).

:mad:

[winyanstaz]

36. oh yes...finish the job of draining the rest of Americas resources...

to pay for these wars...is that what is meant? Finish killing American soldiers overseas to protect the opium fields? ...is that the job?
What the hell is "the job"?? anyways?

[pjt7]

41. I read a story that said Obama's first financial company

was linked to the CIA. I thought it was bunk, but would like to see if any of it, is true.

The CIA is certainly linked in with the Heroin trade & I have never heard Obama discuss this directly.

Again, I might be off base, but he has backed our black shadow forces 100%.

[winyanstaz]

169. I think you are right on track....

[mikelgb]

42. Yeah my vote for Kucinich didn't matter either.

That was the only peace vote in 08.

[brentspeak]

43. Finish us off, more like it

[elehhhhna]

44. define your terms, Mister President.

What is "finish" and what is "our job".

[elocs]

46. Obama should realize that there is a line here for some Democratic voters that he is about to cross

and it is quite likely he will not get them back. It's "once bitten, twice shy", or, as the Who sang, "We won't get fooled again".

[pjt7]

53. How far over the line does Obama

have to go, to wake some of his supporters up?

Giving Tim Geithner the keys to the Treasury is a pretty huge Red Blinking Light.

[sudopod]

66. What line?

He's doing exactly what he said he would before he was elected. I don't like it either, but you can stop ladling out this "I wuz tricked! Chains I can believe in LOLOLOLOL" bullshit.

If you didn't see it coming, you weren't paying attention.

[pjt7]

82. Obama's Nobel Prize

needs to be taken back.

[elocs]

94. Come 2012 there won't be a lot of LOL as Obama tries to talk a chunk of his base to return,

but they will be gone because they are paying attention now and their eyes are wide open.

How about the LBJ/Nixon line: just a few more thousand troops, just a few more thousand troops...victory is in sight, but always elusive. Obama is able to find an exit strategy from Iraq, but is fixated on victory in Afghanistan.

I have a 21 year old godson who has already done one tour in Afghanistan, stationed in the mountains near Pakistan. I actually believed he might get by with just that one tour with Obama, but now I believe that if Obama is reelected that he will go back another 2 or 3 times.

Come 2012 nobody is going to buy the "Change You Can Count On" slogan and my guess is that it will be a running gag on Saturday Night Live.

[pjt7]

116. great post.

eom.

[tom_paine]

144. That is exactly what the PTB/NWO/whoever is really running things, wants

It's quite obvious that some form of the destruction of the last vestiges of liberty and simple human decency is on the agenda, but it must be played out within the limits of the Good Cop/bad Cop dog-and-pony show that has kept the medeval European power structure right where it always has been since probably before 1000 AD.

I used to wonder why our Democrats, with the tiniest handful of exceptions, were so cowardly and inept, but no more. That is the role they are chosen to play and they play it so very well.

Their role is that of the Washington Generals...even when they win they "lose".

But to them the "losing" is winning because they, too, long ago stopped viewing us a citizens and started viewing us as an ugly, stupid peasant mob of easily deceived consumers, not citizens.

They seem to be there solely to give us the illusion of change that keeps us from revolting, although now millions of tabs of prozac and psycholgically numbing TV/entertainments/bread & circuses also fills this role admirably.

[clixtox]

181. I've said the same things many times here in DU.

I like the way you express the reality we face and also debunking the inane "conventional wisdom".

Thank you1

[martymar64]

166. Next time we'll believe him and will not vote for him. He doesn't deserve a second term.

Unfortunately we'll have several thousand more dead American soldiers by the time that happens. They won't get to vote at all.

[shadowknows69]

62. And I'm one of them. Bring on the primary candidates.

[undeterred]

47. Well at least he HAS a job.

:sarcasm:

[Dr Fate]

48. But we "cant afford" a strong public option w/o mandates/penalties against the middle class.

Some one is lying about one or the other.

Either we have a spare trillion or two to spend or we dont.

I think Obama may have just driven another nail in his political coffin.

[shadowknows69]

59. What a fool's errand.

It's the neverending resource wars ladies and gentlemen. All hope for this country is gone. Probably the world too if you aren't in the billionaire club. I'm sure there's nice safe bunkers the "elite" will be in as the rest of civilization is eating itself.

[mike_c]

61. nice sound bite-- now if he could only articulate what the "job" is....

:puke:

[marshall]

67. Of course, it all depends on what the definition of "finish" is

To paraphrase an earlier president.

[saigon68]

87. He will "Decide" what the finish is

After all he is now the "decider"

[Odin2005]

68. Good.

[goforit]

70. Sounds like another "Blow and go" strategy!

[Libertas1776]

74. With all due respect, Mr President

BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS!!!

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[Metta]

117. Sad, sad, sad. What a bad choice from a fake liberal. Happy karma, O.

Enjoy your one and only term.

[ChangoLoa]

129. This is theater!

They already started the effort to integrate pseudo-talibans (3/4 of the resistance) to the system of power. It's the only possible solution.

But, on the other hand, during his campaign, Obama didn't lie about this particular issue of sending more troops to Afghanistan, did he?

[dysfunctional press]

132. fiinish the job of fucking us over entirely...?

thanks, o...

[RedCloud]

140. 100,000,000 said no more war. One general jackoff says more war and here we go.

Democracy in action!

[ima_sinnic]

142. purposely vague and says NOTHING. what a joke.

yes, O, "finish the job" of screwing over the American people who believed your bullshit blather about "change."
the "constitutional scholar" who's keeping the most odious parts of the Patriot Act in place, and the warmongering "Nobel Peace Prize winner." What a fucking grifter.

on edit: forgot about the "community organizer" busy organizing the banking and insurance communities for their big taxpayer-funded bonuses and mandatory insurance payments. I will NOT be voting for this fucking con artist ever again.

[Garam_Masala]

155. Correct decision! Finish off or weaken significantly

Al Qaeda and their hosts the Taliban from retaking Afghan
and mount more 911's.

[Freddie Stubbs]

156. Peace wasn't on the ballot. Obama and McCain were

Obama promised to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan.

Who did you vote for?

[showpan]

157. we voted for change

but what we got was the change in our pockets, and that will soon be worth nothing, for those that do have any.

[ShortnFiery]

158. And the largest Chunk-0-Change will be shoveled into the Privatized MIC with NO QUESTIONS ASKED ...

save for some half baked "exit strategy." :grr:



So 34,000 to 40,000 more of our youth are to be sacrificed to the Gods of Corporate Warmongering?

[Freddie Stubbs]

163. Increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan is the change Obama promised during the campaign

Perhaps you were not paying attention.

[martymar64]

167. We're paying attention now and we will be in 2012. He will be a one-termer.

Anybody that votes to re-elect him will be a chump.

[Freddie Stubbs]

203. I'm sure that President Romney will do a better job

[Stumbler]

159. Man, I hope that means he'll begin the withdrawl of troops...

Sadly, we're still in '84, so I'm expecting an "escalation" of troops, to "finish the job." *sigh* Time for a drink...

[L0oniX]

160. Yep ...just print up some more money for the wars.

Silly Russians failed at it because ...well ...uhm ...they're Russians. We will win it because ..er ..uhm ...God is on our side?

[Earth_First]

161. A big FU*K YOU to American healthcare reform. n/t

[Therellas]

162. what do Alexander the great ,Genghis kan and America have in common?

theres more but i can remember.

[blueclown]

164. Obama is going to 'finish the job' in Afghanistan..

... just as well as LBJ finished the job in Vietnam.

[DonkeyHoTay]

193. "Finish the job" sounds too much like "Mission Accomplished"

"W" lived to rue that photo op with the ironic "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background...

'Nuff said.

[AngryOldDem]

170. He's just lost my vote.

We just never learn from history, do we?

Just one more president under the spell of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A shame.

[2Design]

172. what a mistake this is turning out to be - down the tubes we go n/t

[mvd]

173. The good is he's taking his time to make the decision..

unlike Bush. The bad is I don't see a job with a finish. Will wait to see how the troops will be used to make full judgment.

I'd rather have the money over here going to health care and job creation.

[natrat]

179. please, he is a puppet-these decissions are made by others

[KillCapitalism]

176. Somewhere out there right now...

Bush and Cheney are grinning from ear to ear knowing that their legacy is being carried on by their successor. :mad:

[natrat]

178. very profitable war machine, some pipe lines and the poppy crop to be protected

[question everything]

183. Obama says he'll announce Afghan plan after Thanksgiving

Source: LA Times

President Obama says he will deliver a plan to "finish the job" in Afghanistan directly to the American people after Thanksgiving, along with an explanation of the strategy he has been working for months to forge.

The new strategy will put an end to the situation of the last eight years in which the war was waged without the full "resources or strategy to get the job done," the president told reporters this morning at the White House..

"I feel very confident when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals," Obama said, "they will be supportive."


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-obama-troops25-2009nov25,0,6845795.story

[sethgrogen]

184. Wait.....wait......wait for it.....wait.....keep waiting......wait......

[EFerrari]

186. Well, taking your time does cut the risk that you'll invade the wrong country

like Bush did.

I have no problem with Obama taking his time. None at all.

[pecwae]

192. If you aren't one of the 34,000

to be deployed or one of their loved ones then sure it's easy to wait and of course you have no problem. BTW, I don't believe there's any risk of invading the wrong country; our military is already in Afghanistan.

[EFerrari]

194. Do you think the 34,000 and their families are anxious for the deployment?

Additionally, the more Obama spins this out, the more likely the American public will lose interest, the easier it is to buck the nutcase generals and the more likely the numbers can go down and speed our withdrawal.

As to whether Afghanistan is the right country or not, that's debatable. Btw.

[sethgrogen]

231. I was referring to the constant "Decision Coming Shortly" from the MSM.

[ceveritt]

185. the plan

Well, yeah.

Why wait? If the plan is that close to being announced, why not announce it now?

It's just a question.

Personally, I just want all the troops brought home asap. There's no good reason for another person to die over there, in Afghanistan or in Iraq. Please! Just bring them home.

[avaistheone1]

187. I agree. More dead soldiers will not avenge those who have already died.

[rpannier]

190. If he has a plan why wait until after Thanksgiving to explain it?

[Amonester]

188. What a waste...

of time. (And money.)

[Kshasty]

189. why after Thanksgiving, I wonder?

[EFerrari]

195. Maybe the Presidential Plastic Turkey has been mislaid.

[YOY]

200. Because DC kind of goes into paralysis around T-day.

n.t.

[freddie mertz]

209. What is the job, exactly?

Capture Bin Laden?

He might not "finish the job," whatever that is, but he will certainly end up finishing the LIVES of some patriotic young (and not so young) Americans (to to mention Afghans) in the process. And for what, exactly?

Sad and frustrating.

[CRH]

216. Hope by that he means starting the withdrawal of troops, ...

Afghanistan has a long history of surviving to fight another day, while draining the resources of invaders. If no stability has been found in eight years of occupation, it is hard to imagine more soldiers thrown into a guerilla war will have much success without a stable social structure with a desire for peace.

When was the last time the United States went four years without funding or fighting a war? Obama seems ready to follow in the footsteps of every president in the 20th and 21st century. Tuesday we shall see.

[Marthe48]

218. I will not support an increase of troops

The US shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. Period. Obama's pending decision to send even more soldiers to Afghanistan is a huge disappointment. How many of us worked to get Dems elected believing them when they promised change? Change we can believe in? Ha. As a country, we can't afford to pay for the injuries sustained by soldiers now, at the troop levels there are. But by God, we have to send more troops to fight battles that are bankrupting the country, with no thought of down the road, when somebody will have to make choices about permanently impaired loved ones living or dying, because there is no work, no insurance and no humanity left. I hate this, from the depth of my soul, I hate this.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

222. Obama made it pretty clear that he supported the Afghan War during the elections.

[Marthe48]

223. Next election I'll pay more attention

my fault entirely. On the other hand, doesn't seem like there's many elected representatives who support peace.

[Skittles]

236. so did the repukes

so there was no real fucking choice, was there?

[MollieBradford]

255. yeah but

no one was listening because they were busy believing the fairy tale of him being the anti-war candidate.

[tomg]

219. I marched against Johnson in 1967-68.

I'll march against Barack Obama in 2009.

"Barack Obama told the nation,
Have no fear of escalation.
I am trying everyone to please.
Though it isn't really war,
We're sending thirty thousand more,
To help save Afghanistan from the Afghanis"

Didn't take much to update the old Tom Paxton song. I only hope I am wrong and I have to eat these words.

[Marthe48]

229. I was 14 or so,

put a petition to get the troops out of Vietnam in the school book store. I don't guess I'll ever march and I admire everyone who has or will. Good luck to you.

[ShortnFiery]

244. I was 9 - 10 y.o.

And all I remember first hand was: "Hey! Hey! LBJ! How many kids have you KILLED today?!?"

[paulsby]

230. a vote for obama was never a vote for peace and that was obvious to anybody who paid attention

for pete' sake, he made it crystal clear that he thought afghanistan was justified and that he would fight it vigorously.

[Skittles]

235. so what are you saying

those of us who knew it all along should....what - dance over this decision now?

[paulsby]

246. i am responding to a specific statement

that if you read the post i was responding to which said...

" Turns out you can't actually vote for peace in America and expect your vote to matter. "

like i said. since obama said clearly and several times that he would fight the war in afghanistan, that he thought it was a good war, that a vote for obama WAS NOT A VOTE FOR PEACE.

hth

[ShortnFiery]

237. What the hell is he fighting? He morphed the objective from al Qaeda to the Taliban

That's called Mission Creep and it's VILE. There's only 100 al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Getting al Qaeda NOT The Taliban was OUR MISSION. The Taliban did NOT attack us on 9/11, therefore, we should withdraw NOW!

But now, the mission has changed to prop up the corrupt and vile Karzai government. They are corrupt and should be left to their own devices.

Every day we occupy Afghanistan and Iraq we are less safe as a nation. No MIGHTY EMPIRE has ever subdued Afghanistan, yet WE THINK we will do the job. We even changed "enemies" in order to get more time to have a go at it.

No, this is vile and we should get out of both countries NOW!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjE2wMWMJwI&feature=player_embedded

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

240. To remove the al-Qaeda threat, the Taliban must be defeated.

[ShortnFiery]

243. No way! That's *MISSION CREEP* The Taliban now have no love lost for al Qaeda.

Both wars have made the ME and the USA more dangerous ... more susceptible to terrorism and much more hostility to the USA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjE2wMWMJwI&feature=player_embedded

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

252. No offense, but if you can't take the time to articulate your arguments yourself, why bother?

[harun]

247. This is a big mistake. Unless of course finishing the job means all the troops

are out within a year.

[panzerfaust]

249. What "Victory" in Afghanistan would look like -

I cannot even imagine.

Best it would be to 'surge,' win a few battles, declare victory, and leave.

Since I doubt that the government of 'We, the People' is strong, or moral, enough to simply say: Having denied AQ its base, we forgot that we have already accomplished our prime reason for invading Afghanistan and so we are simply going to leave now.

The logic of more vain sacrifice, so that the previous vain sacrifices are not admitted to have been in vain quite escapes me.

But then, I am not a politician.

[tidy_bowl]

258. Quagmire. nt

[Name removed]

261. Deleted message

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