Alcibiades (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Nov-24-09 11:12 AM
Original message
Why Obama has waited to annouce the Afghan "surge" Updated at 5:11 PM
Edited on Tue Nov-24-09 11:16 AM by Alcibiades
It should be clear by now that the administration had made up its mind with regard to the escalation in Afghanistan some time ago. Multiple trial balloons were floated, and proxies have been out for some time saying it's a forgone conclusion, while Republicans have accused Obama of "dithering." Now, comes the announcement of the announcement that the President will send 34,000 more troops, a number in line with all the various trial balloons floated by the administration and its various proxies very early in this process. Though there have been "strategy sessions," including one last night, there can be little doubt that the military has had these numbers for some time, and has been drawing up plans for the campaign to come.
That being the case, why did they wait so long? I have believed for some time that it is because of health care. This announcement is a signal that the administration thinks that the real battle over health care, Saturday's cloture vote, has been won, and that now it is time to turn to its other priorities. The administration probably suspected, quite rightly, that their choice to escalate the war in Afghanistan would alienate many Democrats, people they needed to call folks such as my own Senator Kay Hagan to pressure them to vote the right way. More chess playing, in other words, except that many of us may not like the game he's playing.
The good news is that we probably will get a flawed, but better-than-nothing health care bill passed. The bad news is that we have given Osama bin Laden exactly what he wanted on 9-11: the involvement of the US in a never-ending, Vietnam-like quagmire on the terrain of his choosing. It may well be the case that the President will now turn to the "I'm the President in a time of war" strategy so popular with the previous administration, and that victories on the battlefield will give him the political capital he needs to accomplish his agenda. Those victories may be elusive. If we are committing more young American men and women to Afghanistan, I do hope we win, but this seems unlikely for a list of reasons as long as your arm.
In Iraq War II, Bush set out a clear goal: a stable, democratic government in Iraq that is an ally in the War on Terror. Problem was, he (or whoever it was who told him what to think) probably knew this, is that this is an impossible task: you could have a stable government, but it wouldn't be democratic, or you could have a democratic government, but it wouldn't be stable, and it certainly wouldn't be an "ally" in the "GWoT." What the President has said so far gives me little hope that he has learned this lesson. It has been claimed, for example, that one of the objectives will be to "reduce corruption." In Afghanistan. An Afghanistan that gets much of its national income from the drug trade, wracked by 30 years of war, ruled by warlords, rife with ethnic and tribal allegiances, beset with an ineffective government that has absolutely no incentive to reduce the corruption that is the main source of what political support it does enjoy. I doubt ANY number of troops could accomplish that, because it's akin to trying to solder delicate electronic components with an arc welder.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7078990Long boring post that I wouldn't have even bothered to bring over here but this caught my eye.
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Nov-24-09 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
1. Maybe he wants to get rid of the Islamic bomb freaks once and for all
I wouldn't be against that. I just wish he'd slash the defense bill in half, and tax the rich as they used to be taxed pre-Reagan, and use that for the American middle class, to improve our country and bring it out of the chaos and depression decades of Repukes forced it into.
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Nov-24-09 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. "islamic bomb freaks...?"
Edited on Tue Nov-24-09 11:17 AM by mike_c
:wtf:
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Nov-24-09 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. 9/11 and all the rest of their sort - were you here when 9/11 happened? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Nov-24-09 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. by far, the worst "bomb freaks" in the world are American, and nominally...
...christian. Did it ever occur to you that 9/11 had a context bigger than "evil Islam?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Nov-24-09 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Um... we had a Christian 9/11 here? oy you'd better explain nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
superduperfarleft (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Nov-24-09 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #19
51. Iraq has had numerous 9/11s since we showed up
If you want to justify it by comparing casualties...
By your logic, Iraq should've invaded the US, killing scores of civilians in the process, all to take out Bush.
Yeah we hijacked tons of planes and rammed them into downtown Baghdad on a daily basis
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Nov-24-09 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
49. Honey, you still believe in Osama? Your bomb freaks are in the mirror.
And you believe in Obama.
DerekJ (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Nov-24-09 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #11
36. Tell me something Sarah; in the context of war, destruction, evil motives, lies and deceit, who do
You think is the bigger asshole, the "Islamic Bomb Terrorists" or the U.S.?
Let me put it in another way; imagine this scenario, where a bunch of innocent children is standing in the middle of nowhere. All of a sudden a terrorist with his long beard , wacky cloth, and his old AK-47 materializes out of thin air, throws a bomb, kills a small fraction of them, then vanishes without trace, and all you hear is the echo of the word "infidels".
Around the other side of the world, a democratically elected president of a powerful country called X is standing all spiffy in a vast hall, denounces the acts of such terrorist, and calls it a cowardly stance, from a religion that promotes violence. Wearing the most expensive suite, and surrounded by hoards of cameras he starts addressing his fellow democratically elected house or congress. He begins by explaining how he has to start a crusade against those children, because after few years, they will turn to critical radioactive mass, and explode in a mushroom looking cloud killing everyone on earth. Country X's Christian right hails him as the new messiah, while the pundits explain to every citizen of country X how their lives will be in jeopardy if they don't support it. He then goes to the U.N holding a jar of some undistinguishable material, explaining, that an equivalent part of those children in this jar would destroy the whole world. And asks other countries to help him kill those children, and some do.
Weeks later, a massive, extremely organised army, that awes whoever lays and eye on it, moves to exterminate those children, every and each one of them.
Years, later the citizen's of country X, and the rest of the world knew that they were duped, those children, were nothing but regular children, but were sitting on a massive stash of Gold.
Yet somehow the citizens of country X still see that terrorist as an inherently bad guy, with an inherently bad religion, while, they are because they are democratic, wearing normal cloth, and have a structured army, did nothing but a mistake.
Yah, well, my point is, you are no different, just each has his own means. One has an army, and a propaganda machine. Started a crusade supported by religious fanatics looking for the return of the messiah, and a terrified to death citizens bombarded by propaganda messages making them think that their massive country is under a huge threat from a bunch of kids. Killing millions in the process, not thousands. And a terrorist short on means, that all he can do is kill a few every now and then.
The funny thing, is that country X, after the first direct attack on its land, did each and every thing it critiqued the terrorists country of doing over the years. Extortion, renditions, torture, assassinations, secret prisons, warrantless wiretapping, patriot act, indefinite detentions, radioactive ammunition, guerrilla like army killing civilians indiscriminately, and the list goes on.
Christian fundies in the country X? Were saying n their news channel how those policies are the right way to go to protect themselves.
I hope you got the message. You're for sure not better, you are most likely worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Yeah we were just picking on the poor muzzies. Good thing we have Obama to apologize for us now.
Face it DUmmies lord O is a lemon. You won't be getting free health care instead you will be forced to buy insurance.
The war will go on half assed but it isn't ending.
The good news for you guys is your heroes at Gitmo may be set free. And taxes for the rich will go up but so will yours so its a 1/2 victory.
So Obama isn't all disappointment for you.
