9. 9 frickin' years we've been stumbling about in Afghanistan

[cali]

If you can't "win" the fucking war- whatever that means- in 9 years, that should be a neon sign that you can't "win". What have we accomplished in those 9 years? Nothing worthwhile. Nothing that makes us safer. Nothing that makes the lives of the people of Afghanistan better.

It's not rocket science.

[babylonsister]

1. A major part of those 9 years Afghanistan was ignored; I

believe we were stumbling around Iraq?

I agree though; we need to get out.

[Soylent Brice]

7. : )

:hug:

[mdmc]

2. I opposed both wars because "victory" required decades of hard work and sacrifice

The two wars would be justified if we can "mission accomplish" by 2011.

[kenny blankenship]

3. Hey sure we'll win! We've won it several times already

and we just have to win it a few more times every decade in order to go on staying there indefinitely. It's not that it can't be done.

[TornadoTN]

13. Bingo. Victory is within our grasp, just around the corner!

Can't wait to hear the platitudes when 2011 draws closer.

[h9socialist]

4. I agree . . . this is outrageous!

And I have been loyal to Obama, but I don't hold with him on this. What bugs me is that when I read Livy's history of the Roman Republic, the recurring theme is that everytime the plebians started to make social progress the patricians always dreamed up some war that had to be fought so they could delay social progress and name a "dictator." Obama and LBJ don't qualify as "dictators." But they found out how to stumble into war in time to save the ruling class.

[cali]

6. to be fair, Obama didn't stumble us into this war

though he's certainly upping the ante. I don't think he'd start a war of choice. And I don't think he did this for the ruling class. see Bob Herbert's piece this morning.

[h9socialist]

12. Well, to be fair . . .

. . . I am an Obama supporter and will not turn against him, even because of this. As a democratic socialist, I know that the American system rarely swings to the Left like it did in 2008. To get too far down on Obama would be to kill the goose-that-lays-golden egg. And no, I don't think Obama is going to this with the needs of the ruling class as his objective. On the other hand, we're over there in the first place because of the interests of multi-national capitalism -- specifically the natural gas pipelines we're protecting -- thanks to George W. and Dick. Obama does not have to be a partisan of the ruling elite -- he only has to come to the strategy they want to pursue, for whatever reason.

I am loyal enough to Obama to not want him to change his name from "Barack Hussein" to "Lyndon Baines." Keeping the heat up to bring our troops home is the only way I can see the democratic Left reminding Obama of why we supported him in the first place.

[JVS]

5. 8, but your point stands.

[Orsino]

11. To be fair, I expect little change a year from now. :-(

The OP may be prophetic.

[LeftinOH]

8. Its *only* been 8 years; nine years ago at this time we were still waiting on election results-

Of course, eight years in Afghanistan is still too long.

[mod mom]

9. and look at what war costs are doing to our economy. Too bad we couldn't learn from the Russians.

[juno jones]

10. I agree, Cali, I agree.

And Afghanistan is notorious for breaking armies. We need to get the hell out, because we are doing nothing but wasting resources.

[xiamiam]

14. me too Cali..i'm stressed to the max over this..we have no choice..its done

we're fucked

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Wait! Look! Over there! It's the LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!! K&R

Aka "Peace with Honor", "Mission Accomplished", "Final Victory".