Obama Wants a 'Surge' in Afghanistan?

[BeFree]

From all accounts, it seems Obama is planning to 'Surge' more troops into Afghanistan.

Is he just selling out to the MIC - Military Industrial Complex, or does he honestly believe that doing more of the same will bring different results?

I wish he'd he see that Afghanistan is an historic defeater of Empire - and pull our troops out of there.
Depending more on diplomacy and something like the Peace Corps is a much better idea.

[wyldwolf]

1. diplomacy and something like the Peace Corps in Afghanistan?

I don't think so.

And I tend to agree with Obama on this.

[BeFree]

3. You got something against...

....diplomacy and the Peace Corps? You think more guns and less butter is gonna solve this problem and make the Afghanistan people love us more?

I think Obama has (am hoping) thrown the MIC a bone. A bone with a string attached that he will yank back as soon as he can.

[KittyWampus]

5. Do you know who the Taliban are? They are the group who are going to kill little girls

who dare go to school.

[wyldwolf]

6. the Peace Corp will put them in their place!

:sarcasm:

[BeFree]

7. Yes, I do know who the Taliban are

And they are the natives of that land, and that we will never defeat them by making war.

We have to try something different. War is never the answer.

[wyldwolf]

8. nope

Along with some from southern Afghanistan, the Taliban is made up of fighters from Pakistan, North Africa, the Middle East, and the former Soviet Union.

They were removed from power once and will be again.

Amazing how pacifists prefer to allow blood thirsty butchers of women and children to remain in power.

[BeFree]

65. Where did anyone say that?

"
Amazing how pacifists prefer to allow blood thirsty butchers of women and children to remain in power."

What has been said is that the way to get the butchers out is by NOT bombing civilians.
Of course, if I wanted, I could say that you DO support bombing civilians.
But you don't, right?

A surge in Afghanistan will mean more innocent civilians being bombed. Right?
Well, I am totally against that, so if you don't want me saying that, come up with something better.

Or become, like me, a proud Pacifist.

[wyldwolf]

89. you think the peace corp will remove them from power

[BeFree]

93. Something like the Peace Corps..

..has a better chance that our military.
Sure, our military could do it, but only by turning them into glass.

Guessing here that you think it is ok to bomb civilians?

Really, your line of thinking reminds me of this truth:
doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results is a sign of insanity.

You surely don't think more bombed villages will do the trick, do you?

[wyldwolf]

97. like what?

[stillcool]

73. Maybe not...

* OCTOBER 28, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515124350674269.html
U.S. Mulls Talks With Taliban in Bid to Quell Afghan Unrest
Gen. Petraeus Backs Effort to Win Over Some Elements of Group

By YOCHI J. DREAZEN, SIOBHAN GORMAN and JAY SOLOMON

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. is actively considering talks with elements of the Taliban, the armed Islamist group that once ruled Afghanistan and sheltered al Qaeda, in a major policy shift that would have been unthinkable a few months ago.

Senior White House and military officials believe that engaging some levels of the Taliban -- while excluding top leaders -- could help reverse a pronounced downward spiral in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. Both countries have been destabilized by a recent wave of violence.

The outreach is a draft recommendation in a classified White House assessment of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, according to senior Bush administration officials. The officials said that the recommendation calls for the talks to be led by the Afghan central government, but with the active participation of the U.S.
---------------------------------
U.S. officials stress that they would play a supporting role in any future talks with the Taliban, which they say would be led by the Afghan central government and powerful Afghan tribal figures. The talks would primarily include lower-ranking and mid-level Taliban figures, not top officials from the group's ruling body.
---------
Another senior American official said that talks with the Taliban will force the U.S. to make hard decisions about how much to offer the armed group for its support.

The U.S. would certainly be willing to pay moderate Taliban members to lay down their weapons and join the political process, these official said. But Taliban demands for amnesty and formal political authority over remote parts of the country might be harder to stomach, he said.

"The question always comes down to price," he said. "How much should be willing to offer guys like this?"

[KittyWampus]

10. they are a small group of "natives" from that land. Do you know what the word 'Sharia' means?

The Taliban are extremist tools.

[Danger Mouse]

26. They're not much better than Nazi's in my book, they're cockroaches.

You can't negotiate with extremists.

[BeFree]

68. Agreed

They are the scum of the earth. They must have their power taken away.

What do you suggest? A new 'Shock and Awe' campaign?

What I wrote, and has not been read, it seems, is "..something like the Peace Corps"

You have a problem with peace? I doubt it, so what is the alternative you have?
Don't tell me you think more war is the answer, please don't.

[Danger Mouse]

92. More war? I don't know. I don't have the answers.

That's why I'm not the president, I'm just some douchebag with a keyboard.

[Milspec]

113. War is never the answer.

Tell that to the mayor of Carthage

[Baby Snooks]

20. Get a history book...

Who armed the Taliban and taught them how to fight and put them in power and then gave them millions not to grow opium which they grew anyway?

And you think we didn't know what Islamic fundamentalism was at the time?

[wyldwolf]

46. what does that matter now?

:shrug:

[comrade snarky]

57. We armed the Mujaheddin

Part of which later became the Taliban. Bad policy? Oh hell yes! It's a little thing really but I think it's important to know the history.

The Mujaheddin were a multi national group comprised of militants from all over the Muslim world. In the 80s a lot of countries like Egypt used it as a dumping ground for their own extremists and religious nutballs. That didn't turn out to be such a good idea either, they ended up getting experience and training in guerrilla warfare against the Soviets and when the Soviets left Afghanistan their countries of origin wouldn't allow them back in. The Mujaheddin immediately began fighting among themselves for control. Our "allies" The Northern Alliance are also ex Mujaheddin.

The first set of World Trade Center bombers came out of this bunch as well. The blind Sheik, Omar Abdel-Rahman, who helped plan the attack was an Egyptian who had been with the Mujaheddin.

The Taliban are mostly Pashtun with a small number of foreign elements and the backing of Pakistan and with money and ideas flowing from Saudi Arabia.

[Hippo_Tron]

63. We knew who the Soviets were, but we allied with them to fight the Nazis

Because the Nazis were the more pressing threat at the time. The Mujahideen were not the pressing threat at the time, but the Soviets were. That's the argument you would hear from the people who made that decision, anyway. I'm not entirely sure I agree with it.

[stillcool]

70. They are so much more...

Afghanistan, the CIA, bin Laden,
and the Taliban
by Phil Gasper
International Socialist Review, November-December 2001
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html
Romancing the Taliban
As the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan in early 1989, American policymakers celebrated with champagne, while the country itself collapsed into virtual anarchy. Almost a quarter of the population was living in refugee camps and most of the country was in ruins. Different factions of the mujahideen struggled for power in the countryside, while the government of Muhammed Najibullah, the last Soviet-installed president controlled Kabul. Eventually, in April 1992, Kabul fell to some of the mujahideen factions and Burhannudin Rabbani was de dared president, but civil war continued unabated. Hekmatyar in particular was dissatisfied with the new distribution 0 power. With his huge stock of U.S.-supplied weapons, h began an artillery and rocket assault on Kabul that lasted for almost three years, even after he was appointed prime minister in 1993. "The barrage...killed more than 10,000 Afghans, drove hundreds of thousands into squalid refugee camps, created political chaos, and blocked millions of exiles from returning." The rest of the country disintegrated into isolated fiefdoms dominated by local warlords.
In 1994, a new group, the Taliban (Pashtun for "students"), emerged on the scene. Its members came from madrassas set up by the Pakistani government along the border and funded by the U.S., Britain, and the Saudis, where they had received theological indoctrination and military training. Thousands of young men-refugees and orphans from the war in Afghanistan-became the foot soldiers of this movement:
These boys were from a generation who had never seen their country at peace-an Afghanistan not at war with invaders and itself. They had no memories of their tribes, their elders, their neighbors nor the complex ethnic mix of peoples that made up their villages and their homeland. These boys were what the war had thrown up like the sea's surrender on the beach of history ...
They were literally the orphans of war, the rootless and restless, the jobless and the economically deprived with little self-knowledge. They admired war because it was the only occupation they could possibly adapt to. Their simple belief in a messianic, puritan Islam which had been drummed into them by simple village mullahs was the only prop they could hold on to and which gave their lives some meaning. Untrained for anything, even the traditional occupations of their forefathers such as farming, herding or the making of handicrafts, they were what Karl Marx would have termed Afghanistan's lumpen proletariat.
With the aid of the Pakistani army, the Taliban swept across most of the exhausted country promising a restoration of order and finally capturing Kabul in September 1996. The Taliban imposed an ultra-sectarian version of Islam, closely related to Wahhabism, the ruling creed in Saudi Arabia. Women have been denied education, health care, and the right to work. They must cover themselves completely when in public. Minorities have been brutally repressed. Even singing and dancing in public are forbidden.
The Taliban's brand of extreme Islam had no historical roots in Afghanistan. The roots of the Taliban's success lay in 20 years of "jihad" against the Russians and further devastation wrought by years of internal fighting between the warlord factions. Initially, villagers-especially the majority Pashtuns in the south who shared the Taliban's ethnicity-welcomed them as a force that might end the warfare and bring some order and peace to Afghanistan. Their lack of a social base within Afghanistan made them appear untainted by the factional warfare, and their moral purism made them appear above compromise. Before launching their war to conquer power, they first won some public support by appearing as the avenger against the warlords' raping of women and boys. Of course, they could not have risen so far and so fast without the financial and military backing of Pakistan.
The U.S. government was well aware of the Taliban's reactionary program, yet it chose to back their rise to power in the mid-1990s. The creation of the Taliban was "actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA," according to Selig Harrison, an expert on U.S. relations with Asia. "The United States encouraged Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to support the Taliban, certainly right up to their advance on Kabul," adds respected journalist Ahmed Rashid. When the Taliban took power, State Department spokesperson Glyn Davies said that he saw "nothing objectionable" in the Taliban's plans to impose strict Islamic law, and Senator Hank Brown, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Near East and South Asia, welcomed the new regime: "The good part of what has happened is that one of the factions at last seems capable of developing a new government in Afghanistan." "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis. There will be Aramco (the consortium of oil companies that controlled Saudi oil), pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that," said another U.S. diplomat in 1997.

[27inCali]

75. I think Afghani's who are being tortured and beheaded

might have some ambivalence towards American intervention but would appreciate a greater sense of security that bigger military presence could help provide -it might give them the courage to fight back against the Taliban a little more themselves.

when Obama says "surge" he means more troops, more diplomacy, more creative solutions for creating a modern economy to undercut the poppy trade.

after watching Bush misuse our military for so long, it is very tempting to believe that all use of military is wrong, but take a look back at Clinton and realize that we can use it in a much smarter way that improves world opinion of the US and increases our overall security.

As tough a problem as Afghanistan represents, I just think it would be a bad idea to pull out, leave those people hanging after years and years of broken promises from Bush and just allow the Taliban to regroup and get stronger, to do that really would be to invite more terrorism around the world.

[babylonsister]

2. Lots of rumors floating, but I'm waiting for the real thing, and the

reasoning. I will be all ears after 20 Jan.

[KittyWampus]

4. You want the Peace Corps in Afghanistan NOW? Were you paying attention during the Primary & GE?

[avaistheone1]

31. Bombs and guns won't work in Afghanistan. Been there, done that.

Soviets already have proven that. They "surged" there for years. It was a complete and utter failure.

Something along the Peace Corps idea is truly a good idea and is already proving itself to work in Afghanistan where we and private groups have made investments in education and building the infrastructure in villages. Where those investments have been made the Afghan people have been actually driving the Taliban out of their villages themselves. Awesome.

[zulchzulu]

38. Do you want to see what an unarmed Peace Corps worker would look like in Pushtanistan

As for any actual RECENT proof of how the Peace Corps are driving out the Taliban, I'd sure like to see that.

Afghanistan in its present state is condition red militarily. The Taliban have returned and now the Pushtan forces on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is about to explode and go into Afghanistan.

Sending unarmed Peace Corps there at this time is a utopian, foolish, careless and practically suicidal mission. In time, but not right now...

[marshall]

9. I've heard they're going to follow the model of the Iraq surge

Even those who don't think we belong there think it worked, so it's supposed to be the template for future actions.

[babylonsister]

12. Who said that? Odd, considering Obama didn't think the 'surge' in

Iraq worked and never admitted to that.

[marshall]

17. He said it reduced the violence beyond "wildest expectations"but didn't meet the political needs

I guess since the political situaiton is different in Afghanistan and the violence needs to be reduced there it is considered a good move for that country.

[Baby Snooks]

18. No one thinks the surge worked...

So that is no "change" on the part of the incoming cabal. Which is the outgoing cabal. Which isn't really outgoing, is it?

Obama promised change. Then keeps the warmongers in the Defense Department in place. All of them. That is not change. That is just the "same old, same old" from another politician.

[BeFree]

21. It is our biggest problem

This continuance of the 'Might makes right' attitude that has infected our country.

More of the same and expecting different results has been defined as being insane.

[babylonsister]

24. I've read your 'woe is us' posts. As for me, I will wait until

he's actually in office before I criticize the incoming admin. I did hear Biden say recently that we'll be out of Iraq within two years. That does sound like progress and does sound like a promise Obama made. As for Afghanistan, I don't know what their end game is, but I'll be watching.

[marshall]

42. He basically said part of it worked and part of it didn't

He's going to carry over the part that worked and dump the part that didn't work.

[stillcool]

77. Why is it so many forget..

the 'change from the bottom up' thing. And..what is it that you think he should do about American Imperialism? Where would one find support for withdrawing our footprint across the globe, and allowing Russian/China/India etc., to usurp our place as a super-power? How would that play?

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. Wrong.

The 'surge' worked in Iraq by distracting the US public from the ethinic cleansing that was going on. When all the Shia were removed from Sunni territories, and visa versa, the 'surge' was declared a success -- after all, the overall level of violence decreased.

The surge in Afghanistan is NOT a cover for ethnic cleansing. It is, in fact, a real military plan to isolate and destroy the Taliban and Al Queda - making alliances with the Afghanis to drive the foreign fighters out of Afghanistan.

My only worry about it is I'm not sure it is possible to do it without strong Pakistani support, since the Taliban was a creation of the Pakistani secret service (in cooperation with the CIA).

[avaistheone1]

40. I don't think the surge strategy will work in Afghanistan.

It didn't work for the Soviets. The Soviets surged in Afghanistan for years.

In addition the existing Afghan government is corrupt from top to bottom.

[RaleighNCDUer]

44. The difference is, the Russians (like the British before them) were

fighting the Afghanis. The Taliban is not, for the most part, an Afghani organization. Though most of their troops are Afghani Pashtuns, they are the products of Pakistani madrassas and the foreign element of Pakistanis, Saudis, Yememis and north Africans (Somalis and Sudanese) as well as Chechen and Balkan fighters is very strong.

There is absolutely NO correlation between the so-called 'surge' in Iraq and an infusion of ground troops sufficient to take on the Taliban and Al Queda. The Iraq surge was nothing more than theater meant to cover the reality of the ongoing ethnic cleansing - when the ethnic cleansing was completed, when the urban communities were no longer mixed, the level of violence declined for lack of targets, and we declared the 'surge' a success.

BTW, the reason the Russians failed in Afghanistan had as much to do with the unwillingness of the Russian draftees to die in a country they had no stake in, as the US spending millions upon millions of dollars funding rebels to fight the Russians (much like the British failing because of the money Russia spent opposing THEM), and the Russian were clearly holding the upper hand in support of the Afghani government until the US gave the rebels the capacity to knock down Russian aircraft. You do know, don't you, that the Russian 'invasion' was at the request of the communist Afghani government which had overthrown the Afghani royal family some two years earlier, don't you? In response, the US supported the Pakistani dictatorship (since Russia was supporting the democratic state in India) and worked through the Pakistani secret service to create the mujahadeen, and then the Taleban so as to fight them evil Commies. In the Russian 'invasion' not a single Afghani military unit opposed the Russians - they moved right onto the Afghani military bases and quartered side by side with them.

There are NO parallels.

[stillcool]

82. Aren't they mostly..

products of years of fighting wars?

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. Yup. Change I can believe in

Which is: no change whatsoever, except the name on the door and the color of the office carpet.

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. It is a change, just not the change that pacifists wanted

[TechBear_Seattle]

35. Nor is it the change the liberals wanted, the gays wanted...

... the environmentalists wanted, the believers in the separation of Church and State wanted.... Need I go on?

And yet, this is exactly the change that Pat Robertson, Rick Warren and other neo-conservative Talibangelical bigots wanted. You will excuse me for not being 100% enthusiastic.

[Freddie Stubbs]

49. Obama didn't run as a liberal, so why would anyone expect him to govern as one?

:shrug:

[TechBear_Seattle]

50. I concede your point

However, he was hailed as the salvation of the left. Maybe that is what has me so miffed.

[Freddie Stubbs]

56. Whoever hailed him as "the salvation of the left" was either being deceitful or was simply not

paying attention.

[TechBear_Seattle]

59. Mostly, I saw it here at DU

There was also a fair bit from the US media, but I expect them be deceitful.

[PurityOfEssence]

94. Not so fast there, slick:

He ran against his principal opponent by painting her as part of the establishment and same old same old. Those are code words that suckered LOTS of leftists into thinking he wasn't a corporatist appeaser. He also ran VERY SPECIFICALLY as an anti-war candidate, only changing tack when the heat got to be too much and he had to dispel aspersions of weakness.

His campaign was a studious one of inference, latching onto trends, smiling and going along with various flows, and one of them was liberalism. He droned on with homilies about health care and taxing the wealthy, so it's a little dishonest to claim that he didn't hope that liberals would think he was one of them, even if he kept perched on the fence and winked to the others. The sheer fact that so many "thought" that he was running as a liberal isn't a defense for his actions, it's a damning statement about his convenient maneuvering and favor currying. Gosh, how could so very, very many people be so very, very wrong about him? It must be the weather. Maybe it's sunspots. Swamp Gas. Iron-poor blood.

The precise problem with his campaign is the virtual absence of precision: he was all things to all people, and even though he habitually ducked controversy and played both sides of the street, he left the whiff of many different stances lingering about. Now it's time for action. He can't cheese out and duck the Sense of the Senate vote on Iran while pillorying Hillary for hers again. He can't conveniently resign his seat and avoid uncomfortable votes like on the Auto bailout, now he has to really, really make stands, and the joke is this: virtually any stand he makes rises in stark contrast to other hints and posturings he's made to those on the other side of the particular issue.

Frankly, he's ABSOLUTELY DESTINED TO DISAPPOINT: so many have convinced themselves that he's for their particular cause, that the realization is going to be a real letdown.

[SoxFan]

106. He ran as a JFK-style liberal

He ran as a force for generational change, as the candidate of idealism and involvement. A lot of that appeal doesn't easily translate into boxes on the ideological litmus test.

Hillary got herself backed into the LBJ/HHH corner and looked like a boring and conventional pol, especially when she had Usual Suspects like Penn and Begala advising her.

[Freddie Stubbs]

107. He was not vague on Afghanistan. He was very clear that he was going to increase troops there

He promised to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan in 2007.

[BeFree]

108. Yep, but did he call it a surge? No

I call it a surge.
Pretty much a surge like Bush did in Iraq in 2007. Obama, to my knowledge never called it a surge. But I am, because the surge in Iraq was wrong and this too is wrong.
Oh, I understand why he thinks it need be done, but he's wrong if he thinks it will fix anything or bring peace to Afghanistan.

Obama was against the surge in 2007, he needs to be against a surge into Afghanistan in 2009.

[Freddie Stubbs]

109. A surge by any other name...

He was very clear since 2007 that he wanted to increase troops in Afghanistan. Voters elected him after he promised to do this.

[BeFree]

110. That single issue won him the election?

Well, this 'surge' is one thing that made me contemplate my support for him.

Being that the other choice was what it was, I put aside that difference and vowed to do what I could after he was elected to get him to change his mind and do no surge.

[Freddie Stubbs]

111. That one issue certainly didn't stop many people from voting for him

He had that position all throughout the primaries, and received more delegates than all of the other Democrats combined.

[BeFree]

112. It didn't help

Oh, I guess it helped some of the warmongers to feel that Obama would
keep their dream going. And pacify some of the most rabid pentagoners.

Like i says in the OP: hopefully 'surge' has a string attached and he pulls it back.

[anigbrowl]

84. You talk as if you just found out

When in fact, Obama's been articulating such a policy since summer of last year. Matter of fact, I threw my support behind him because he was willing to commit to pursuing bin Laden and/or his lieutenants while Bush seemed to lose interest in that whole conflict.

[TechBear_Seattle]

91. Nope, I knew this about him last summer as well

And I knew that Clinton would have been no real differences with Clinton as well, which is why I threw my support for Kucinich, even after he dropped out. Yet again, the only thing the Democrat had going for him was that he was less bad that the Republican.

[RollWithIt]

13. Seriously wondering if anyone bothered to actually listen to Obama's speeches...

He said REPEATEDLY that we needed to take men out of Iraq and put them into Afghanistan where the real war on terror was.

[Clio the Leo]

14. Yep, that's what I heard.

Barack has yet to do anything that surprised me.

Thankfully. ;)

[polmaven]

16. That's what I heard as well.

And I think is is absolutely correct. If our forces had not been depleted by the unnecessary occupation of Iraq, this whole thing may well have been over by now.

I won't say the President Elect hasn't done anything that surprised me, the Warren thing did surprise me more than a little, but this certainly did not, and should not come a a surprise to anyone.

[Drunken Irishman]

53. It was a major part of the debate. I think some people just ignored the election entirely.

[JuniperLea]

66. That's what I heard... and more importantly, apparently...

Is the fact I actually remember!

:eyes:

I'm pretty damn tired of all this hysteria and "surprise" at something I KNOW I heard.

[BeFree]

72. I heard that

But I don't have to agree with that.

If we have any common sense left, we will re-evaluate our stance there, as we will in Iraq.
And then we will find a way to make peace without blowing up more villages.

We've ruined our reputation on the ground there, and now we must change what we are doing.

[stillcool]

74. But what does that mean?

Regardless of where the troops are moved to, the purpose of their presence in the region remains the same.

Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Game Plan (1986) and The Grand Chessboard (1997) present global views almost wholly based on Mackinder’s concepts
New York Council on Foreign Relations Foreign Affairs article by Brzezinski from September/October 1997:
"Eurasia is home to most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states. All the historical pretenders to global power originated in Eurasia. The world's most populous aspirants to regional hegemony, China and India, are in Eurasia, as are all the potential political or economic challengers to American primacy. After the United States, the next six largest economies and military spenders are there, as are all but one of the world's overt nuclear powers, and all but one of the covert ones. Eurasia accounts for 75 percent of the world's population, 60 percent of its GNP, and 75 percent of its energy resources. Collectively, Eurasia's potential power overshadows even America's.
Eurasia is the world's axial supercontinent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world's three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another for Asia. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy

[kas125]

78. Just because he said it didn' t mean we agreed then or that we should

now stop telling him what we think. The reason the anti-war movement supported Obama was because he was more likely to listen to us and he can't hear us if we don't speak.

[anigbrowl]

86. I did, and still. I'm not anti-war, I'm anti-stupidity

I'm afraid I do think we're quite justified in pursuing bin Laden and his fellow travellers. If he died after dialysis, I'm fine with digging his body up.

[JoePhilly]

81. Agree .... he ALWAYS said this ... it is not a surprise. And he is right!!

[mopinko]

90. i don't think anyone here listened to any of the speeches about anything.

afghanistan, or anything else. so far everything he has done has been exactly what i expected him to do. this is one that i don't agree with. but he said it loud and clear over and over.
personally, i was hoping he was bluffing. he is a great poker player, after all.
we shall see.

[mucifer]

15. I'll wait and see on this one. I'm very worried about Afghanistan.

It didn't work for Russia when they tried to rebuild infrastructure and help people in Afghanistan. I don't see why now would be different.

[janx]

96. Um...because the U.S. isn't Russia? n/t

[Connie_Corleone]

19. Maybe you should've paid more attention during the presidential race.

Obama has been saying the same damn thing since the beginning of the year. Also, there are other things that will be done in Afghanistan than just a "surge". Obama knows that a "surge" of troops is not enough to deal with Afghanistan.

[BeFree]

22. Well he made a big mistake

And it will end up costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars if we allow him to carry on.

I am not one to just sit back and let that happen.
Obama is wrong about Afghanistan.
Dead wrong.

[Clio the Leo]

23. So what's your solution for protecting the Peace Corp...

in Afghanistan?

[GarbagemanLB]

28. Give them flowers and puppies to hand out to the bad guys. That'll turn 'em!

[DevonRex]

43. Don't forget the kittens. Kittehs can do wonders. That'll calm down

those dratted Taliban people. Heh.

[BeFree]

69. Well

Like I wrote in the OP:
"Depending more on diplomacy and something like the Peace Corps is a much better idea. "

Nowhere did it say exclude the military, and having some military to protect something like the Peace Corps would be necessary. And it is just an idea, this Peace Corps thing, a new idea as far as I can tell - AFAICT.

But doing what we've been doing isn't gonna cut it, so we need new ideas, eh?

[Danger Mouse]

25. The Peace Corps?? What, you want them to die?

[TexasProgresive]

27. You just now hearing that?

This has been Obama's consistent position on Afghanistan. It may be wrong but it is not new. He campaigned on it in the primaries and the general election. Weren't you listening?

[scheming daemons]

29. Here's a thought... HE'S DOING EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD DO DURING THE CAMPAIGN

I'm amazed at the number of people that consider keeping a campaign promise to be a "sell out".


Were you not listening during the campaign?

[Peacetrain]

30. Bingo!.. From day one of his campagin, he was focused on Afghanistan

and the Pakistan borders. People who find sudden outrage at Obama for what he always said he was going to do, .. I just do not get it.. Now they may disagree with his stands, but to suddenly think Obama switched direction, I am not getting this.. He has not sold out anything.. He is where he said he was going to be. :shrug:

[Muttocracy]

103. Yep, he was very clear about it. nt

[leftofthedial]

34. he's just doing what he's told.

[zulchzulu]

36. Afghanistan is a complicated battle, but putting in Peace Corps means lots of...

...innocent, young people getting beheaded at this time.

Thinking the Peace Corps is the solution for dealing with incredibly challenging terrain and Pushtun ambitions for the creation of an independent Pushtunistan with links to the Taliban and Al Qaeda is to utterly not know a damn thing about that region.

The Peace Corps could go into very small parts of Afghanistan in a few years perhaps. But to have them there unarmed and dealing with the Taliban and Al Qaeda would be totally careless and bone-headedly utopian.

[avaistheone1]

39. It doesn't have to be the Peace Corps. It could be an international effort

focused on building schools and infrastructure in the villages. This is the only thing that has been successful in terms of Afghan empowerment and subsequently the Afghans themselves driving the Taliban from their villages.

[zulchzulu]

54. I totally agree...

The UN, NATO and perhaps a new coalition of Arab countries that want to empower the Afghan people with infrastructure improvements would be worth doing and, from what I gathered from Obama's view, is what would be the choice.

The Peace Corps could be there once things have been greatly stabilized like they kind of were in the 1970s.

[comrade snarky]

58. I agree as well

But without breaking the power of the Taliban that has no chance of starting or working in any way.

I you build 100 schools for girls but every girl that goes there gets threatened and some get a face full of acid it ain't gonna work. They'll stand empty. How do you even build when the local labor you hire is tortured and murdered for taking the job?

I don't like it either but this a case where I think fighting is necessary. The problem is that's where we stopped last time.

[BeFree]

71. Thanks, avaistheone

You get it.

"This is the only thing that has been successful in terms of Afghan empowerment and subsequently the Afghans themselves driving the Taliban from their villages.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

37. I actually believe that Bush was on the right track with invading Afghanistan after 9/11

(*gag*)

O.k. Now that that's out of the way...................

IMHO we needed to go in there with force, eliminate the training camps, and capture or kill Al-Queda members responsible for the 9/11 attacks. However, Bush being.....er.......Bush (and his crew) botched up the operation, first by failing to prevent significant numbers of Al-Queda to escape into Pakistan where they are (way) more difficult to capture or kill now, particularly when you consider the tenuous political situation there right now, and second, by diverting troops and resources AWAY from Afghanistan (because, of course, there's not enough bombing targets there) to a completely UNNECESSARY invasion/occupation of Iraq which has now persisted for the last 5 years during which time Afghanistan has begun slipping back into anarchy and lawlessness and seeing some resurgence of the Taliban. Had we concentrated more of our resources there instead of Iraq for the past 5+ years, Afghanistan might well be in MUCH better shape now.

I honestly am conflicted about what we should do now. Our military needs time to recover and restructure from the Iraq occupation IMHO and I don't think there's enough troops, resources, etc. to do another "surge" anywhere in the world but OTOH I don't believe that we can afford to simply ignore Afghanistan again like we did after the Soviet occupation ended in the late 1980's/early 1990's.

However, previous posters are right that Obama frequently argued for this during the campaign so his stated intentions to follow through with this in no way surprises me. I just hope he (and his generals) come up with a good, workable plan that actually stands to help benefit our interests in Afghanistan, as well as ensure the health, safety, and security of our troops.

[anigbrowl]

87. It was about the only thing he did get right

If they'd actually maintained their focus on that instead of getting all self-congratulatory and deciding to knock over Iraq as well, the world would be a much different and likely a better place now.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

102. Well, he can't be a "war President" without having another "war" to fight

We toppled the Taliban and sent Al-Queda on the run pretty quickly (thanks to Clinton's allegedly "broken" military) and there wasn't much left to do after late 2001/early 2002 except help rebuild Afghanistan and finish off Al-Queda. Peace/reconstruction=Boring!!!! I think that one of the (many) reasons Bush decided to go after Iraq was to secure his then-high poll numbers and win re-election in 2004 by remaining a "war President" and, well, the only way for him to do that was to ensure that there was another "war" going on somewhere. I'm sure he noticed how his father's poll numbers plummeted post-Gulf War 1 and was determined NOT to repeat his father's "mistake". Or he had an untreated case of severe ADHD and couldn't handle focusing on one military conflict at a time. I guess we should be thankful that he didn't/couldn't launch another military conflict after Iraq.

[Balderdash]

41. In your other thread you said we shouldn't

jump on Obama for every little thing. You just meant
the gay thing then?

[BeFree]

61. The gay thing?

The gay thing?

Gawd, get over it. I support equal rights for everyone.
I support equal rights for everyone.
I support equal rights for everyone.
I support equal rights for everyone.
I support equal rights for everyone.

I might like a gay person, or I might not. What I like doesn't matter, but:

I support equal rights for everyone.
I support equal rights for everyone.
I support equal rights for everyone.
I support equal rights for everyone.

Is that clear enough, now?

[rollin74]

45. Peace Corps in Afghanistan?

how long do you think the Peace Corps would choose to remain in Afghanistan once they started getting shot, kidnapped and blown up by the Taliban? The Taliban threatens and attacks children in schools. I hope you don't believe that they would leave Peace Corps personnel alone.

[TheKentuckian]

47. All year long he has said he wanted to add two brigades

and now it is some issue? A new one, anyway?

No one promised you a change to a pacifist country. My belief is either 9/11 was an inside/approved/ignored job or the threat needs to be dealt with. I can go either way on that but will only go one way or the other. I don't think good vibes will fix this situation.

Obviously, martial power alone will not make the changes we need in Afghanistan. There will have to be a fairly serious nation building effort to couple with it but these aren't nice people by ANY report and sometimes such folks have to be dealt with through might. That's the real world.

The change is avoiding stupid wars of choice that counter all of our other foreign policy, like Iraq that many ignorantly fell for. A basic understanding of our long term Middle East policy would have told anyone that Iraq would be a counter-productive effort at best and likely would undo whatever holding patterns and backfires that we have set up over the past 70 years or so.

My questions revolve around more of troop type and missions rather than any concerns of the fundamental idea, that is unless 9/11 was a sham, in which case that is the fish that needs to be fried.

[Uzybone]

48. Is this news? He has been saying this since 2007 at least

[Blue_In_AK]

51. We will suffer the same fate as the old USSR

if we continue to be bogged down in Afghanistan militarily.

[comrade snarky]

60. Without a Marshall Plan

I agree completely. If military might is all we use it will be doomed to failure.

We have to encourage and support the more moderate power structure and build the infrastructure the people so desperately need. It's going to be expensive, it's not going to happen overnight and it's not going to be cheap but the alternative is so much worse. If we just pull out Afghanistan it will probably go back to the Taliban and that would encourage the same bunch in Pakistan. That country is just too unstable already.

I think we have a real moment as we pull out of Iraq. A time when we can say to the people of Afghanistan that we are not imperialists. That we left Iraq to the Iraqi people and we'll do the same here soon. We aren't your enemy. It wont be easy and it cant be just words. They've gotten too much of that already.

[Drunken Irishman]

52. Where have you been the last year?

He's been talking about adding more troops there for months now.

[Milo_Bloom]

55. He always has SAID this.

However, when anyone dared to bring this up during the primaries or during the general election they were told "Don't worry, he is just saying this"

They praised how smart he was to play to the center and insinuated he was just playing a part and that we should wait for the election to be over so we could see what he will really do.

What's funny to me is that this same group of people are now saying, "Didn't people listen to his speeches".

[stillcool]

62. I would like someone to explain to me...

how we stop being a super power. I don't recall ever being asked about 'our' military intervening in foreign countries, and yet we've been doing it since WWII. Who gets to decide when it's time to close down some of those at least 737 military bases we have on foreign soil? When do we stop selling weapons, and doling out money to governments who allow our presence in their 'terrorist'-rich countries? Does anyone know how our presence across the globe is beneficial to us, or even how our military serves 'our' interests?

[JuniperLea]

64. Where were you during his campaign?

This is exactly what he said was needed. Fewer troops in Iraq, and more in Afghanistan... settle both areas down and do the work in policing mode, using intelligence instead of weapons.

Why did so many turn a deaf ear to him during the campaign?? I'm astounded! Seriously astounded!

[Deja Q]

67. 'selling out' or 'has information the rest of us do not know about and he agrees with'?

No proof either way.

Now maybe he is a sell-out, the creator of herpes, and the Antichrist, all rolled into one... :eyes: or maybe there's something more significant going on that he rationally agrees with. I don't know, but he does come across too intelligent...

And I've learned enough by now not to think the worst over... conjecture. After all, and here comes my favorite bit, the last three elections weren't canceled due to a manufactured terrorist ooga-booga attack.

[Onlooker]

76. How dare you question Obama!

Don't you realize it is absolutely wrong to question anything Obama does. If you do the-teen-groupie squad, and those who are stuck there, will come down hard on you. That said, his Afghanistan plan has never been any better than Bush's unless you believe revenge is the true road to peace.

[stillcool]

79. That's a liittle school-yardish, isn't it?

His "Afghanistan" Plan? That "Plan" does fit into the bigger picture of our preferred position of dominance in the Middle-east since the 1940's, no? What would you do, considering we have a plethora of bases/materiel/troops scattered through-out the Middle-east? Would that enter into your deliberations?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/American_Empire/Blood_Oil_TNAM.html
The New American Militarism
How Americans Are Seduced By War
by Andrew J. Bacevich
Oxford University Press, 2005, paper
U.S. strategy in the Middle East from the 1940s through the 1970s adhered to the principle known as economy of force. Rather than establishing a large presence in the region, Roosevelt's successors sought to achieve their objectives in ways that entailed a minimal expenditure of American resources and especially of U.S. military power. From time to time, when absolutely necessary, Washington might organize a brief show of force-for example, in 1946 when Harry Truman ordered the USS Missouri to the eastern Mediterranean to warn the Soviets to cease meddling in Turkey, or in 1958 when Dwight D. Eisenhower sent U.S. Marines into Lebanon for a brief, bloodless occupation-but these modest gestures proved to be the exception rather than the rule.
The clear preference was for a low profile and a hidden hand. Although by no means averse to engineering "regime change" when necessary, preferred covert action to the direct use of force; the CIA coup that in 1953 overthrew Mohammed Mossadegh in Tehran offers the best-known example. To police the region, Washington looked to surrogates-through the 1960s British imperial forces and, once Britain withdrew from "East of Suez," the shah of Iran.' To build up indigenous self-defense (or regime defense) capabilities of select nations, it arranged for private contractors to provide weapons, training, and advice-an indirect way of employing U.S. military expertise. The Vinnell Corporation's ongoing "modernization" of the Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG), a project now well over a quarter century old, remains a prime example.
By the end of 1979, however, two events had left this approach in a shambles. The first was the Iranian Revolution, which sent the shah into exile and installed in Tehran an Islamist regime adamantly hostile to the United States. The second was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which put the Red Army in a position where it appeared to pose a direct threat to the entire Persian Gulf and hence to the West's oil supply.
Faced with these twin crises, Jimmy Carter concluded that treating the Middle East as a secondary theater, ancillary to the Cold War, no longer made sense. A great contest for control of that region had been joined, one that Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini had made unmistakably clear was not simply an offshoot of the already existing East-West competition. This was something quite different.
Rejecting out of hand any possibility that the United States might come to terms with or accommodate itself to the changes afoot in the Persian Gulf, Carter claimed for the United States a central role in determining exactly what those changes would be. In January 1980, to forestall any further deterioration of the U.S. position in the Gulf, he threw the weight of American military power into the balance.
In his State of the Union Address of that year, the president enunciated what became known as the Carter Doctrine. "An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region," he declared, "will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."'
From Carter's time down to the present day, the doctrine bearing his name has remained sacrosanct. As a consequence, each of President Carter's successors has expanded the level of U.S. military involvement and operations in the region. Even today, American political leaders cling to their belief that the skillful application of military power will enable the United States to decide the fate not simply of the Persian Gulf proper but-to use the more expansive terminology of the present day-of the entire Greater Middle East. This gigantic project is the true World War IV, begun in 1980 an now well into its third decade.

[Onlooker]

80. I think Afghanistan is a quagmire

I think we have to work towards stopping the arms trade, which is the key reason for most conflicts. The Carter doctrine certainly served us quite well until Bush II ended it, but it also served American military industrial interests. In the end, if we can find a way to slow or stop the arms trade, nations will eventually solve their own problems without resorting to the sort of massive slaughter that modern weaponry provides. We should use arms embargoes and economic embargoes, and do all we can to press others to engage in similar embargoes.

Obama's energy plan is actually in part a good alternative to some of the reasons behind the Carter doctrine.

(My school yardish response was because of the attacks I took today for criticizing Obama in other threads, and so was a bit uncalled for.)

[stillcool]

85. Bush didn't end it..

every President since Carter expanded it. The Carter Doctrine was the first time it was stated as policy that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region.

[AZBlue]

83. More of what same? We gave up on the Taliban almost immediately.

[HughMoran]

88. He's been saying this since WAY before the election

Should I act surprised that he plans to keep his word?

[snowbear]

95. That's EXACTLY what I was thinking!!! .. Where has the OP and the 6 people who rec'd this POS been ?

.
.
.

[BeFree]

100. When?

When did Obama ever use the word 'surge' to describe his wanting to put more troops in Afghanistan?

The word 'surge' is my interpretation of his desires and is meant to cast aspersions on that desire.

Obama does not need to not put any more troops into Afghanistan.

People who feel the same need to organize and make Obama see that it is a 'Surge'- just like bush's surge in Iraq, that he is contemplating.

[Muttocracy]

104. here's a DU item from July 2007.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3417939

[AtomicKitten]

98. "from all accounts?" Oh, you mean the hundreds of times he talked about this during the election.

[Bragi]

99. Afghanistan is not a good war

This war is not about women's rights. It is about securing an oil pipeline. When all is said and done, the same crowd of Wahhabist religious extremists, tribal warlords and drug barons will continue to run the place, as they have for the last 200 years.

If Obama actually does escalate the war in Afghanistan, as he seems to intend, then it will become his quagmire, and a blight on his Presidency.

[natrat]

101. and the big money changers win again and again and again

[SoxFan]

105. He said this two years ago

Come on, people, Dennis Kucinich did not win. Obama is not a leftist; he's a JFK liberal, and anyone who has read his writings or listened to his speeches understands that fact.