Afghan Policy a "Script" for Escalation

[G_j]

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/10/23-14


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 23, 2009
4:36 PM
CONTACT: Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA)
Sam Husseini, [phone]; or David Zupan, [phone]


Afghan Policy a "Script" for Escalation

WASHINGTON - October 23 -
ELIZABETH GOULD and PAUL FITZGERALD

In Washington D.C., until Saturday, Gould and Fitzgerald recently wrote the book Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story. They began covering Afghanistan in 1981 for CBS and produced the documentary "Afghanistan Between Three Worlds" for PBS.

They said today: "Opinion here indicates that the administration is behind the runoff, expects Karzai to win, which will in their view legitimize the government in order that McChrystal's request for more troops can be granted. It's a script totally detached from reality. There's still no real plan except the military option. Washington apparently doesn't think public opinion in Afghanistan matters. Afghans here are all appalled by Karzai, but feel entirely left out of the process set up by the Bush gang. Afghans won't accept the verdict on Karzai no matter which way it comes in. The government insiders here are terrified that the whole thing between Pakistan and India will soon blow wide open. They're beginning to refocus on the regional collapse now underway but just don't know what to do about it. ...

"The focus on al Qaeda is all wrong. Queeta Shura of Mohammed Omar is now far more powerful with connections of its own in the Middle East. Their religious mission overpowers their political one and is drawing support from everywhere. The situation in the north is growing worse. Russians are very worried that a path is opening up for Taliban in the Northern provinces. Lots of fighting. Punjabi extremists are fighting in Helmand. Very bad sign that Pakistan is out of control."
###
A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.

[theHandpuppet]

1. Thanks for the link

We've GOT to bring this issue front and center before it's too late.

[SIMPLYB1980]

2. Good.nt

[theHandpuppet]

3. Care to elaborate?

:shrug:

[SIMPLYB1980]

4. Not really. I've explained myself in other posts.

But hey why not post this anyway.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/07/15/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_96.php

"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.

Make no mistake: we can't succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It's time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That's why I'm cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam.

Only a strong Pakistani democracy can help us move toward my third goal - securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states. One of the terrible ironies of the Iraq War is that President Bush used the threat of nuclear terrorism to invade a country that had no active nuclear program. But the fact that the President misled us into a misguided war doesn't diminish the threat of a terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction - in fact, it has only increased it."

[theHandpuppet]

5. And do you think escalation will achieve those goals?

Because I don't. Despite the investment of bombs, men and money, Afghanistan is just as unstable as ever, with the Taliban spreading to other parts of the country in the north and west. The government is corrupt, as is that of Pakistan. If our government's intent is to occupy Afghanistan for an indeterminate length of time and with an ever-escalating amount of men and money, just when do we save we've "won"? Do we even get to say "enough!"? How many countries can we bomb with drones in the name of Afghanistan?

[SIMPLYB1980]

6. Yes.nt

[theHandpuppet]

8. Well alrighty then

I guess there will be no further questions from the audience.

Wow... seems a lot of folks so vocal about questioning our wars have suddenly fallen silent.

[spoony]

9. Not all of us.

But what I've learned is that it's pointless to argue with the DU Fighting Chickenhawk Squadron. Especially its leader.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Escalating a lost war worked ever so well for LBJ and Nixon. K&R

[SIMPLYB1980]

10. No but it worked out well for FDR and Truman. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Yeah. But they were smart enough not to take on Afghanistan. And, how did Korea work out?

[SIMPLYB1980]

12. Fairly well or did North Korea take over the South while

I wasn't looking.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Well, we're still "protecting" South Korea after 50+ years.

How's that working out for the American people who are still footing the tab?

[SIMPLYB1980]

15. And has it fallen?

:shrug:

[Bragi]

13. Many good points in the article

The point it makes about the Taliban becoming more global and political/ideological (versus religious) in its orientation underscores how successful the U.S. military operation has been in transforming a backward, medevilist gang of inward-looking religious thugs into an outward looking Islamist movement. Way to go. If Obama escalates the troop count (again) then this will just get worse.

[G_j]

16. It's me and my brother against my cousin. But it's me and my cousin against a foreigner

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6747999


http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/10/10-1

Published on Saturday, October 10, 2009 by The Nation
Al Qaeda in Afghanistan
by Greg Kaufmann

<snip>

Wednesday marked the beginning of Year Nine of the war. In the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John Kerry, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee and a Vietnam vet who knows a thing or two about the costs and consequences of a quagmire, convened a hearing titled "Confronting Al Qaeda: Understanding the Threat in Afghanistan and Beyond."


<snip>

Republican ranking member Richard Lugar then turned to Gen. Stanley McCrystal's call for up to 60,000 additional US troops. "Who would we be surging against ?" he asked. "How would this have any effect whatever on the incidences of terrorism in the United States, Western Europe or what have you?"

"Let me answer that with an old Middle Eastern proverb," Sageman replied. "'It's me and my brother against my cousin. But it's me and my cousin against a foreigner.' So if we send 40,000 Americans...that will coalesce every local rivalry; they will put their local rivalry aside to actually shoot the foreigners and then they'll resume their own internecine fight.... Sending troops with weapons just will unify everybody against those troops, unfortunately."

Grenier emphasized that a surge would turn not only Afghans against the United States but also Pakistanis. "A large increase in the US presence in Afghanistan would not be welcomed by the majority of Pakistanis," he said. "It would make the struggle seem all the more starkly as one of the US versus Muslims, as opposed to the US supporting Afghans in their own struggle."

..more..

[G_j]

17. ==