Feinstein, Chambliss, and McGovern on Afghanistan

[laststeamtrain]

Feinstein, Chambliss, and McGovern on Afghanistan

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D-Calif.) chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, endorsed a counter insurgency strategy in Afghanistan Sunday, saying that a decision has to be made on troop increases very soon.

"I read all the intelligence, and it is pretty clear violence is up...The mission is in serious jeopardy," she said on ABC's "This Week." " If you're going to stay, you have to have a way of winning. The question is what is that way. I think this counterinsurgency strategy is...critical."

Feinstein praised the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, saying she didn't see how President Barack Obama could turn down his request for 40,000 additional troops in Afghanistan.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, (R-Ga), also a member of the Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services Committee, said that the president should give McChrystal the troops he needs.

<snip>

Coming down on the other side, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), also appearing on "This Week," said that it would be a mistake to put anymore troops on the ground in Afghanistan, where there are already about 60,000.

"I want a clearly defined mission..a beginning, a middle, an end...We don't have an end in Afghanistan," he said. "I think we need to re-evaluate our policy...We have been in this war for eight years. Enlarging our footprint"

<more>

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/1009/Feinstein_Chambliss_and_McGovern_on_Afghanistan.html
*

Endless war is fine with Feinstein.

[RandomThoughts]

1. I have some thoughts on this.

The idea of endless war is the occupation itself. If a military force is present for a generation or two, the entire culture of a society can be changed. And in my opinion many parts of the Taliban should be changed, but there are many ways to do that besides occupation.

The way a civilization is modified is not the presence of just the military, it is the support troops and support mechanism that sprout up around an occupying army. Over time people find work supplying things that the army needs. Many of those things include an economic system and a political system.

If the army is there long enough, fast food restaurants and stores to supply those troops during down time will also be built, those institutions will put an economic foothold into the society, then over a couple generations the country would become like many in western countries like, where money and methods of making money can define much of the culture.

If you look back at Roman assimilations they did not do it with the military, they did it with the towns that sprung up around the Roman military occupiers, and by letting locals join in the Roman system.


That would be my guess of what the goal of the change of currently occupied countries.

By having the military in Iraq and Afghanistan for a long enough, the money people think that they can create a money culture closer to Kuwait like.

It is not about exporting democracy, it is about exporting economic control systems.

If it was about democracy there would be far more people talking about the problems of the corruption after the elections. Some think corruption is not the problem, because they use that same method in the USA. (See: Lobbyist and no paper trail voting machines)

My thought on Afghanistan is that going out into the mountains is attacking entrenched positions, and establishing long term bases is economic in goal. However since that economic goal has not shown a proper democratic result in the USA, I don't see how it could be supported there when it is not supported here. And the occupation is not for the good of the USA, but to form the world the way certain groups want to see it. Just like modifications to the USA system have been to form our country in a certain way small groups like. Just like international banks set social policy requirements on developing countries to get loans, or for lowering paying back loans.

And if the argument is about stopping people from doing 9/11 like attacks, first you have to find out what groups did those attacks. And if they are even in Afghanistan, and making a bunch of people angry does not lesson terrorism anyway.