How did you decide on the best way forward in Afghanistan?

[moondust]

[nyc 4 Biden]

1. I read The Nation.

Great source for Afghanistan coverage. Bill Moyers Journal also does a great job.

[moondust]

Good sources indeed.

[rockymountaindem]

2. So what you're saying is that nobody outside the White House or Pentagon has an informed opinion?

Why bother watching the news at all, then?

[moondust]

4. Not really.

Just a reminder that there is still a "good faith benefit of the doubt" option available.

[timeforpeace]

11. Pwned.

[closeupready]

26. You certainly are saying that.

n/t

[QC]

3. I follow the lead of this great American:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82py_wk5vE4

[Krakowiak]

29. perfect response

[gleaner]

5. I didn't take the poll ....

It seems slanted to favor the position that the "president knows a little bit more about this than we do." Having heard that soooooo many times during Viet Nam, when clearly all the president knew was that he was going to stay in that war come Hell or breakfast, regardless the dictates of good sense, I have been here before. I reject that position absolutely.

If you are trying to make a particular point, why not just make it, instead of framing a poll or a post to try and make it for you?

What I think, clearly stated and without assuming that an elected official is right simply because they are an elected official is that the best way to deal with Afghanistan is to leave it. So far the wars on both fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan have accomplished nothing except to kill a lot of our soldiers and a lot of their soldiers and civilians. There have been no astonishing terrorist captures except for the ones Bush made up, far from winning hearts and minds we have alienated people the world over and made those who were inclined to commit terrorist acts in the first place feel more justified in doing so, and more likely to do so. We have whatever terrorists who were in Afghanistan at the beginning of the war out of Afghanistan, most likely into Pakistan, where Obama has been dropping drones on people who are most likely not terrorists. Terrorists know how to hide. Civilians usually don't.

Dropping drones on the Pakistanis is really pissing them off and they have nukes. Get them mad enough and who do you think they might shoot a nuke at a short distance away across the Afgahni border. Think it might be the military? Seems likely to me.

[moondust]

6. He does. And not just a little bit.

But try to tell that to an arrogant American whose brain is marinating in corporate media manipulative bullshit.

[gleaner]

48. I did tell him....

he may not have heard me, but that would be his problem and not mine.;) I don't believe truth is relative to perspective. Truth is truth. Semantics, propaganda and moral relativism are not truth.

[ShortnFiery]

23. "Having heard that soooooo many times during Viet Nam ..."

So true! The M$M is not bothering to recycle the same lame excuses into something remotely creative:

1) If we leave it will be The End of Times (Domino effect of Communism in Vietnam scare?);

2) Those poor folks really want our help (Neither the Vietnamese did then nor the Afghan People do now);

3) We can't just pull out but must escalate first! (Half-baked conventional warfare within an occupied nation of diverse populations didn't work in then, won't work now.);

4) If we don't continue to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq with huge foot print, Iran will take over (when was the last time Iran invaded another country?)

----------------------------
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/6854

The Washington Post today reports that Gen. McChrystal is likely about to request more troops for the stated rationale of protecting the civilian population in Afghanistan. President Obama should deny this request because no past increase in U.S. troops in Afghanistan prevented a subsequent yearly increase in a) civilian casualties generally or b) civilian casualties specifically caused by pro-Afghan-government forces (that’s us, folks).

From a new report by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA):

Operations carried out by PGF have resulted in a growing number of civilian casualties since 2007. Whereas the overall proportion of civilian deaths attributed to the PGF has declined in recent years, mainly due to concerted mitigation efforts, the actual number of civilian deaths continues to increase.

UNAMA’s report shows that troop increases in Afghanistan for the purpose of reducing civilian deaths are all repeats of a failed tactic. Note this chart from BBC.

[gleaner]

47. I think it was the 12th of never .....

I think they are still waiting for the U.S. to bomb them into oblivion. That tends to make you isolate and withdraw for your own protection. Bush killed whatever nascent democracy might that the Iranians might have produced on their own. They were so close.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. and the link. Firedoglake and Crooks and Liars are two of my favorite blogs.

[endless october]

7. study history. nt

[moondust]

8. Stop living in the past. n/t

[HughMoran]

9. lol n/t

[cowcommander]

10. Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat It

Even the Soviets with all their unrestrained military power and disregard for basic human rights couldn't conquer them, it should've been so obvious!

[moondust]

19. The Soviets

ultimately had to face U.S. weaponry. And I'm not aware of NATO trying to conquer anybody but rather leave a stable situation behind when it leaves. There are differences.

[L0oniX]

12. Doesn't matter. I am totally anti policy war.

[moondust]

13. No problem.

Unfortunately that is not an option for a reality-based President.

[L0oniX]

15. That's my point. Policy wars are optional wars.

[moondust]

17. Sorry, I misread that.

So you have decided based on some information you have that a return of the Taliban and their willingness to again host terrorist groups is not a real threat but some kind of policy thingy invented in the bowels of a think tank or something, maybe similar to PNAC?

[L0oniX]

41. This has always been a police matter not a military one. It was not a nation that attacked us.

So I guess you love war no matter what the reason?

[LooseWilly]

14. Before I answer, could you please inform me which way is forward?

Without a strategy... we're just over there shooting people, and bombing them.

The longer that continues (and 9 years is a long while), the more credible the theory of a strategy of the conquest of "pipelineistan" becomes.

Is that the strategy/ way forward? If so, I think that Obama is on the right track... and within 30-50 years "pipelineistan" might be secure enough to start building Starbucks there for the troops... though I really wish the Oil Companies could be made to pay their "fair share" of the expenses of conquest/stabilization of "pipelineistan", as they are the ones who will ultimately be making a financial killing from the occupation... not the average citizen of the US.

If any of the "official" rhetoric is even remotely true, however, then we should just leave now, and re-invade once the Taliban has taken over again, and re-invited al Qa'eda... and we should just call it a "do over".

[moondust]

18. I guess we find out next week.

I'm skeptical of the pipeline theory since it has received little attention over the past 8 years. I tend to think if that was the deal there would have been some insurgents blowing things up or capturing the pipeline route or something like that.

:shrug:

[LooseWilly]

22. We'll find out Obama's choice next week.

My perfect solution, however, will not be televised.

As to a brief touching on the "pipelineistan" theory: http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis161.html

More can be found in a post on progressiveindependent, if you're so inclined.

As to it's not receiving coverage implying it's not a factor... I can't help but notice that there's been precious little coverage of the possibility that Iraq was invaded in order to re-gain control over the oil for US/"coalition" corporate interests. I also find precious little coverage of the practices of the World Bank, lending money to "third world" countries for infrastructure improvements, with the proviso that Bank Charter country corporations then be hired for the projects (presumeably because only they are "certified" to the insurance standards of the terms of the Bank's loans)... so that those corporations can then turn around and hire local sub-contractors (for pennies on the dollar) to do most of the actual work, while the Charter Nation corporations pocket the lion's share of the profits, and the "third world" countries are left to pay off the loans and the interest... and if their payment schedules encounter a "hiccup" then the Bank Executives go in and restructure the country's economy (opon penalty of US/NATO "intervention") so that the payments can be made (and most likely more corporate contracts will be involved along the way).

I don't think the lack of coverage of that bit of international financial activity is much covered by the media either... but I don't think that lack of coverage is indicative of falseness of that activity, but rather more indicative of the perceived tastes of the target audience the media is trying to appeal to when it chooses its stories, and the frames within which they choose to examine those stories.

And, that brings me to what I expect to see from Obama next week: the Frame that Obama means to hang upon whatever action he means to take. It's like the unveiling of a stage upon which a play will take place... we're going to be presented with a drama within the confines of that stage/frame... and no one is going to talk about what is happening back stage, where the scenery is built/shuffled, the marketing strategies are worked out, the handbills are printed... etc.

Nothing happens in this world anymore unless it is of benefit to a corporation... except maybe piracy off the coast of Somalia, or my darning of my socks.

[Cid_B]

21. Theres a "Green Bean" coffee shop a few FOBs over...

Not sure if we have Starbucks yet...

[LooseWilly]

43. Heh... well then, I guess the conquest of "pipelineistan" is proceeding ahead of schedule.

Good for you poor bastards in the FOBs.

I don't suppose you get a discount on the coffee for your efforts to secure that real estate? (Maybe I'm just being cynical, but the mere suggestion just sounds so "Un-American".)

Out of curiosity... my analysis was based solely on shit that I've been reading on the subject... if you're actually on the ground there... how's it all look to you? Does that analysis I was trying to digest sound like a bunch of bullshit when compared with what you're seeing up close?... or does it sound like it might explain some of the inexplicable bullshit? (Or something in between?)

[kenny blankenship]

16. Follow the Leader!

Anyone know the words to the Horst Wessel Lieder?
I have a feeling we'll be asked to sing harmony.

[Cid_B]

20. Went over and checked it out myself...

Easy eh?

[closeupready]

24. I just decided that whatever is good for the Pentagon, is good for America.

That's how. :sarcasm:

[closeupready]

25. Interesting how you weren't so snarky when George Bush claimed he had intelligence

suggesting that Iraq needed to be invaded. Oh, but wait - that was different! He had an R after his name!

[moondust]

27. I have worked in intelligence.

(A long time ago.) I knew Bush and Cheney were full of shit from day one.

[closeupready]

28. Unless you'd studied all the classified intelligence reports that GWB got and

carefully weighed the various options against what was then realistically achievable, then I'm afraid you had know way of knowing they were full of shit, using the metric you employ in your poll. Hindsight is 20/20.

[moondust]

30. Not at all.

In the case of Iraq one had to accept the false premise that some action was needed in order to achieve something. There was no need to take action to achieve anything. The status quo was within acceptable parameters and sustainable. The Bush/Cheney Iraq case did not add up and they had no credible proof. It did not require any special intelligence to draw that conclusion.

Afghanistan, on the other hand, requires some dramatic action because it is a situation that currently exists and the status quo is not a sustainable option. Somebody has to decide what to do based on something or other and then do it.

[closeupready]

40. So tell me this, and precisely please: WHAT is unsustainable about Afghanistan's status quo?

It's little more than a feudal society.

And even if it collapses, so what? Would have no special global significance.

But you tell me why the status quo there is unsustainable, please.

[kenny blankenship]

34. But it doesn't seem to have rubbed off

[moondust]

37. Moronic insults will get you as far as

IGNORE.

[kenny blankenship]

39. I love it when a chump like you shows his sensitive side, quick as I snap my fingers

You're easy fella. Maybe too easy, but I'll take it!

[EFerrari]

31. I hope I'm not supposed to deduce that I should trust CIA, DoD

and State more than I trust me or the my own ability to dig up information and put it together.

Because it ain't gonna happen. In fact, with the exception of FBI, I trust those three agencies the least of any agencies in our government, less than I trust the IRS. lol

/ack

[JackRiddler]

32. Bush had access to the same intelligence sources, too - you didn't question his decisions?

[kenny blankenship]

35. Game. Set. Match, Mr. Riddler.

[U4ikLefty]

33. Fail n/t

[bigtree]

36. i rely on ridiculously weighted polls

[JackRiddler]

38. There is no way forward IN Afghanistan.

[H2O Man]

42. Other.

Turn left in Pakistan.

[Euromutt]

44. In all honesty, I gave up hope when there was no second round of elections

In essence, Karzai blatantly tried to rig the presidential election, and the international community has not only decided not to censure him for it, but to pretend he won. The Taliban have exploited this by claiming the election was decided in Washington and London, and I'm sorry to say that in a very real sense, they're right. I think this may have been a fatal mistake in the West's efforts to give Afghanistan a stable and popular government.

[TicketyBoo]

45. During the campaign

it was evident that he planned on escalating the war in Afghanistan.

And, at that point, it was an okay thing to advocate.

But things have changed. Al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan. They've hightailed it into Pakistan. So the strategy should change.

Since the ones who have declared war with us via 9/11, the supposed cause for the war in Afghanistan, are no longer there, why should we be there? We shouldn't.

We need to get the heck out of there, where the only thing our guys are accomplishing is getting themselves blown up. Get out and if al Qaeda dares to come back into Afghanistan, go get 'em then. The only reason I can see to put more troops into Afghanistan right now is if we're going to use it as a base to go after them in Pakistan, and I doubt very much that's what's going to happen (and it probably shouldn't).

Bring our guys home, darn it! This is not the same war it was a year ago when you were elected, Mr. President. Say that, and bring them home.

[Ichingcarpenter]

46. Heroin and Hash Prices

Just kidding