es·ca·late

[unhappycamper]

Pronunciation: \ˈes-kə-ˌlāt, ÷-kyə-\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): es·ca·lat·ed; es·ca·lat·ing
Etymology: back-formation from escalator
Date: 1944

intransitive verb : to increase in extent, volume, number, amount, intensity, or scope <a little war threatens to escalate into a huge ugly one — Arnold Abrams>

transitive verb :

— es·ca·la·tion \ˌes-kə-ˈlā-shən, ÷-kyə-\ noun

— es·ca·la·to·ry \ˈes-kə-lə-ˌtȯr-ē, ÷-kyə-\ adjective


The 2006 Iraq escalation was called a 'surge'; I wonder what Obama is going to call the Afghanistan escalation......

[SIMPLYB1980]

1. Might as well get use to it.

He's obviously not going to pull out.:shrug:

[RetroLounge]

5. Then get used to being on the wrong side...

although you already are on this subject.

RL

[SIMPLYB1980]

8. Oh well.

We will see how right I am when he sends in more troops in the next few weeks. Nothing I have seen coming out of the White House has shown that they are even thinking about pulling out. We are going to be in this one for a while that is completely obvious. No amount of moaning is going to change Obama's mind on this.

[bigtree]

10. he'd better get used to the opposition

. . . because we're definitely not going to be silenced by the self-satisfied din of hawks and warmongers.

[tekisui]

11. Obama can get used to rising opposition to his war.

He will suffer politically for it. By accepting the neo-con frame that war can be an instrument of policy, he sets himself up for a major political hit.

The Left no longer supports the war, and the right does not support the approach he is taking. He is choosing the worst option and it could sink his chances at a second term (depending on the job numbers).

[SIMPLYB1980]

13. I'm sure that he is worried about that.

I'm glad he's not taking political calculations into consideration with his decision. Also what rising tied are you talking about. The last polling on this actually saw a rise in support for the war.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33495798/ns/politics-white_house

WASHINGTON - As the Obama administration decides whether or not to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds that a plurality of Americans now backs a troop increase, and a strong majority supports waiting on a decision until after the country conducts its presidential runoff election next month.

Also, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid moves forward crafting a Senate health-care bill that contains a public option ? with a state "opt out" ? the survey shows support for a government-run insurance plan is at its highest level since the debate began and opposition is at its lowest level.

Perhaps most revealing, the poll highlights the public?s disgust at Washington, with the number trusting government at its lowest level in 12 years and with nearly half of Americans favoring the creation of a new political party.

[tekisui]

14. lol. Not even 50% support it.

47 percent to 43 percent, respondents say they support increasing the troop level in Afghanistan.
(from your link)

That is not a resounding majority. I said he is losing the left, which he is. You are in the minority of Democrats. A majority of Democrats no longer support escalation or the war. You are in good company with the repukes. They are the ones who support it over 50%.

If you think he is not taking political calculations on it, you are willfully ignorant or incredibly naive.

[SIMPLYB1980]

16. See the thing is that you said there is a "rising tide"

of opposition. When the latest polling says that the tide is going out. If Obama and our troops can turn around the deterioration of Af-Pak watch those numbers go up to about 60 to 70 %. Looks to me like the anti all war folks are running out of steam. Maybe they should have a big anti war rally but I doubt you could organize one before he commits troops, and I doubt that if you could get 1,000,000 people in DC that Obama would change his mind.

[tekisui]

18. LOL!!! 60-70% you are in la la land.

There is a rising tide of opposition. You gave on WSJ poll. Support has been declining for AfPak War for years.

Damn, once we turn that corner, it'll all be good right, cheney?

The anti-war folks are jaded. too many didn't pay attention or were really just anti-bush or aren't paying attention now.

Hey you can still there and feel like you are right because the President agrees with you. But, his position is not viable or durable. At some point he, or the next president, will realize it is lost and get the fuck out. Until then, you and he will continue a failed adventure at the cost of many lives and billions upon billions of dollars.

[SIMPLYB1980]

21. I'll believe it when I see it.

Until you all march on DC against Obama it's all words and no action.

[bigtree]

23. There are mid-terms

This president has demonstrated that he's attuned and responsive to the political winds in Congress. That's where I believe our activism will generate the most attention and response.

[SIMPLYB1980]

25. You will not see much opposition from our elected officials.

They will need Obama's support to gain re-election and I doubt many besides DK will give him much of an opposition on the war.

[bigtree]

29. The opposition of many key Senators like Levin

. . . has already caused the WH to consider approving something less than the all-in that McCrystal is advocating. If it's such a good idea to stay, then why half-ass it . . . unless the WH is listening to the folks they expect to fund their 'pollyanish misadventure' (as Matthew Hoh called it).

[SIMPLYB1980]

31. That is why Obama more than likely told McCrystal

to high ball his numbers.

[bigtree]

15. the latest Pew poll saw the support falling and the Harris poll has it even

from TPM: http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/poll-only-50-of-americans-support-keeping-troops-in-afghanistan.php


A new Pew Research poll shows American support for keeping NATO and U.S. troops in Afghanistan is continuing to fall -- to 50 percent in September, a 7-point drop-off since June.

The number of people who want American troops to leave Afghanistan as soon as possible rose during the same period -- from 38 percent to 43 percent.

The fall off in support for keeping troops in Afghanistan held across political groups. The poll found that Republican support for keeping troops in Afghanistan dropped from 75 percent to 71 percent; among Democrats, support fell from 45 percent to 37 percent; and among independents, from from 57 percent to 51 percent.


another survey from the Harris Poll: http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20091102005987&newsLang=en


These are some of the results of BBC World News America/ Harris Poll® of 2,227 adults surveyed online between October 23 and 27, 2009 by Harris Interactive®.

Looking back over the past year, the American public has always been a bit divided over the war and troops in Afghanistan. Back in January, just as Barack Obama was preparing to be sworn in as president, one-third of Americans (33%) wanted to commit more troops while just over one-quarter (27%) wanted to commit fewer troops and one in five (21%) wanted to keep the same level of troops. In August, this attitude shifted and one-quarter (25%) said send more troops while almost two in five (37%) said commit fewer troops and one in five Americans (20%) still said keep the same level of troops. Now, there is more of an even split on whether to commit more or less troops while fewer Americans believe we should keep the level the same and more Americans are not at all sure.

There are also gender and age differences over what to do in Afghanistan. Men are more likely than women to want to commit more troops (41% versus 21%). Women, on the other hand, are more likely to want to commit less troops to the war in Afghanistan (40% versus 28%).

The older one is, the more likely they want to commit more troops and the reverse is also true as the younger adults are more likely to want to commit fewer troops to Afghanistan. Two in five adults aged 55 and older (40%) and 36% of those aged 45-54 years old want to commit more troops compared to one in five adults aged 18-34 (19%) and 28% of those aged 35-44 who feel the same way. On the other side of the issue two in five adults aged both 18-34 and 35-44 (42% and 38% respectively) want to commit fewer troops compared to one-third of those aged 45-54 (33%) and one-quarter of those aged 55 and older (25%).


BTW, Bush spent his terms ignoring the will of Americans. I voted for a change from that. I suspect that the majority of those who elected him did as well.

[SIMPLYB1980]

17. Well then it's a dead lock and Obama

will still be sending in more troops. +1 -1 +0 = 0.

[bigtree]

19. and we'll still be protesting that policy

. . . in every avenue and forum we can manage. That same opposition to war is a large part of what propelled him into office. I think it's a bit ignorant to underestimate the effect of that opposition politically. I'm sure some war-loving folks will whistle past it, but they're own confidence in the resolve of the president to continue without pause is no less speculative than opponents in their belief that they can change the course of this occupation with their activism.

[SIMPLYB1980]

20. Good luck with that. nt

[bigtree]

22. I'm expecting much more than luck

. . . for our argument to transform the debate in Congress and the White House into action to deescalate and end the occupation.

I take it that you're just being facetious in your well-wishing, so, I'll forgo the thanks.

[SIMPLYB1980]

24. Oh no I'm quite serious.

If y'all get us out of Afghanistan your way I would be about as happy as if we do it the way I think is right. Of coarse after we do it your way the Taliban will probably try to move on Pakistan and there Nuclear arms, and then we will be right back in a war again.

[bigtree]

27. Most of the Taliban who are aligned with al-Qaeda are in Pakistan right now

Almost every observer (including the administration and the Pentagon) admits that there's little chance that Pak's military is vulnerable to any takeover by the Taliban who reside there. Even the president has indicated in his reported planning that he would like to focus more on those rouge elements by encouraging Pakistan to do more. He's certainly not advocating using our military there, yet, they are what you apparently believe are keeping the Taliban in check. Most reports, however, say that their violent activity is increasing in tandem with our own escalation.

It doesn't help to have our military force presence and activity defending Karzai in Afghanistan generating and encouraging those resistance elements in both countries who are befitting from the propaganda surrounding our self-serving occupation. On balance, I only see a net counterproductive effect to our nation-building siege in Afghanistan.

I see no evidence that our military forces can successfully 'defeat' the ideology' or resentments which are fueling the resistance to NATO and the U.S. in the country and the region. Those resentments are what even our last administration's intelligence agencies determined were 'fueling' and fostering' more individuals bent on resistant violence than we could effectively put down. Nothing has changed in that equation except for the doubling down on our aggravating presence and devastating military activity there. The end result to continuing all of that is depressingly predictable.

[SIMPLYB1980]

30. Link?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/11/world/main5377231.shtml

"Clinton said extremists were "increasingly threatening the authority of the state, but we see no evidence that they are going to take over the state. We have confidence in the Pakistani government and military's control over nuclear weapons."

Miliband told reporters at a joint news conference with Clinton that although Pakistan faced a "mortal threat" from extremists, there was no danger of its nuclear weapons being compromised.

He scolded those who might raise the suggestion. "I think it's very important that alarmist talk is not allowed to gather pace," he said."

I agree with this right now, but if we pull our troops out of Afghanistan then I think that the safety of Pakistan's nukes will be in question yet again.

[msongs]

2. Vietnam 2? nt

[RetroLounge]

3. Bulge?

QuagmireStan?

Simply Stupid?

RL

[bigtree]

4. 'necessary'

Etymology: Middle English necessarie, from Latin necessarius, from necesse necessary, probably from ne- not + cedere to withdraw

[BeFree]

6. heh

How about the old stand by--- Saving the world!!

Go ahead OB, steal the term from those liberal tree hugging do gooders. 1984 style.

[butterfly77]

7. He can't pull out the way some people want any how..

he is damn if he does and damned if he doesn't...

[bigtree]

9. he can redefine the mission in a way that begins the process of leaving

Instead of escalating the occupation behind all of the nation-building and 'terror' fighting ambitions that he's reportedly going to expect those troops to facilitate with their limbs, lives, and livelihoods.

[tekisui]

12. He can set a withdrawal as the objective, and work towards that end.

Putting more troops in takes us that much further into the quicksand.

[Ichingcarpenter]

26. Quagmiretastic!

U.S. Continues Quagmire-Building Effort In Afghanistan


KABUL, AFGHANISTAN— According to sources at the Pentagon, American quagmire-building efforts continued apace in Afghanistan this week, as the geographically rugged, politically unstable region remained ungovernable, death tolls continued to rise, and the grim military campaign persisted as hopelessly as ever.

In fact, many government officials now believe that the United States and its allies could be as little as six months away from their ultimate goal: the total quagmirification of Afghanistan.

"We've spent a lot of time and money fostering the turmoil and despair necessary to make this a sustaining quagmire, and we're not going to stop now,"




"Some say the war in Afghanistan is already a quagmire, being as it's gone on for eight years and the situation on the ground continues to rapidly deteriorate," said Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

"But I know we can do better. There are still dozens of tribal allies to alienate, troop morale could sink even lower, to the point of mutiny, and by continuing to fire a bunch of missiles from unmanned predator drones we have the opportunity to scare the living shit out of every last civilian in the region."

Continued McChrystal, "If we play our cards right, the word 'Afghanistan' could soon replace the word 'Iraq' as the agreed-upon successor to the word 'Vietnam' in the American political lexicon."



http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_continues_quagmire_building

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. "Bring it on!", "Smoke 'em out!" "Stay the course!" Same bogeyman, same policy.

Same pathetic reason of showing Amurka is "tough".

[Individualist]

32. Probably an Orwellian word or phrase