US Envoy Opposed To Afghan Surge »
Posted By Mikunited 3 weeks, 1 day ago in Political NewsThe US ambassador in Kabul warns against sending thousands more troops to Afghanistan, in a dramatic intervention.
Read Full Story at news.bbc.co.uk »
227 Views Share Story 9 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Mikunited
I'm 49 and work as a painter and decorator.I live in London,with my long time partner,she is a teacher.We have ...
Who Also Submitted: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 9 (view all)
-
67%
thoughtforsale3 weeks, 1 day ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sending more troops to Afghanistan won´t have any positive effect. It doesn´t really matter, if the number is 15,000 or 40,000. I think, the ambassador is right, when he clearly states this. Every enlargement of the forces will cause resistance and hatred. I don´t know an easy solution, but more troops will be seen as a provocation only.
Reply -
amybrown116Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
Neutral
hyperbola3 weeks, 1 day ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is time for Americans to LOUDLY oppose the manipulations of the "neocon" traitors and media that are trying to force Obama into deadly mistakes in Afghanistan.
Reply
Obama should start by getting rid of the traitor McChrystal. Any general that runs off to the "israel-firsters" to write a report for the President has no business being in command of American troops.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal - NeoCon Shill
You’d think that by now everyone would know better than to give anyone associated with Bill Kristol’s neoconservative cabal the time of day, but no. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, our man in Afghanistan, has written a conveniently leaked assessment that demands we once again escalate our efforts in his theater of war, a demand that the dogs of war are howling for Obama to accede to.
It turns out that one of the primary tank thinkers who helped McChrystal crank out his assessment was Fred Kagan, the neoconservative superstar who brought us the surge in Iraq. Two years and change into its execution the Iraq surge is a strategic cesspool. As U.S. Army Colonel Timothy Reese recently observed, our years of effort at establishing a competent and reliable government and security apparatus in Iraq have come to naught. The "ineffectiveness and corruption" of Iraq’s government, he wrote in a recent memorandum, "is the stuff of legend." Of Iraq’s security forces, Reese wrote, "Corruption among officers is widespread." Laziness is "endemic" and "lack of initiative is legion." ...
That Kagan, and by extension the entire neocon cabal, still has such influence is not only alarming, it is dangerous. Even worse is the manner in which the neocons have aligned themselves with the Pentagon in its power struggle with the Obama administration. ...
...McChrystal’s report is a compendium of the same sort of gibberish that got us embroiled in the Iraq fiasco. Eight years after we first fumbled our efforts in Afghanistan, the neocons lament, it may become a failed state if we don’t send more troops and money there now, now, now. Afghanistan has been a failed state since Alexander the Great drove through it. McChrystal says that "overwhelming firepower" is not the solution to the Afghanistan situation, yet he and Kagan are asking for more firepower.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/10/02/gen-stan... -
Neutral
hyperbola3 weeks, 1 day ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And we also need to LOUDLY oppose GOP/ZionCon efforts to re-write history - ESPECIALLY rewriting of history that tries to repeat the same kind of fatal mistakes that have cost Americans so dearly in the past.
Reply
Hollow Victory - GOP Wants to Kill Lots more Americans in Afghanistan
According to the Republicans, the United States is once again at the crossroads of losing another critical war because of feckless Democrats. Only this time it's Afghanistan.
The real tragedy of Vietnam is not that the United States lost, but that it became involved in the first place. It pains me to say this as someone who served in the American military from 1965 to 1975, but the anti-war movement was right: It did not matter to U.S. security whether North Vietnam conquered the south and unified that country under communist rule. More than 58,000 American soldiers and more than 2 million Vietnamese died in an unnecessary and foolish war.
A similar logic applies today with regard to Afghanistan. .... In Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, it simply does not matter whether the United States wins or loses. It makes no sense for the Obama administration to expend more blood and treasure to vanquish the Taliban. The United States should accept defeat and immediately begin to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan.
Of course, President Obama will never do such a thing. Instead, he will increase the American commitment to Afghanistan, just as Lyndon Johnson did in Vietnam in 1965. The driving force in both cases is domestic politics. Johnson felt that he had to escalate the fight in Vietnam because otherwise the Republicans would lambaste him for "losing Vietnam," the same way they accused President Harry Truman of "losing China" in the late 1940s.
Obama and his fellow Democrats know full well that if the United States walks away from Afghanistan now, the Republicans will accuse them of capitulating to terrorism and undermining our security. And this charge will be leveled at them for decades to come, harming Democrats at the polls come election time. The Democrats have no intention of letting that happen.
The United States is in Afghanistan for the long haul. As was the case in Vietnam, more American soldiers and many more civilians are going to die in Afghanistan. And for no good reason.
(John Mearsheimer, a West Point graduate, is a political science professor at the University of Chicago.)
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/11/07/hollow-v... -
100%
Mikunited3 weeks, 1 day ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There seems to be no clear goals in Afghanistan.Is it to stop Al Qaeda training camps?Is it to rid the World of the Taliban?Is it to make sure the Taliban don't take over Pakistan and gain their nukes?Is it to help Afghanistan form a liberal democracy?
Reply
The first point,concerning Al Qaeda is what we should be about.No matter how distasteful ones finds them, the Afghan Taliban haven't invaded anyone.The Pakistan Taliban are a distinct entity in their own right,they have links with the Afghan Taliban,but have their own command structure and their own aims.
I feel that the West should concentrate on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and maybe give weapon support to Pakistan.Rather than 40,000 more men being sent to Afghanistan,I think it's time to bring that amount home.It isn't the Wests role to push a liberal democracy on Afghanistan,they clearly don't want it.
I think All American,British,Australian and other coalition troops,should be home within 2 years.
The only hope of leaving anything like peace behind,is to attempt to get the warlords,more moderate elements of the Taliban,the so called government and it's official opposition,to enter into dialogue.The aim of these talks would be to enter into a grand coalition.
If things are allowed to slide anymore,it will become the Vietnam of the 21st century. -
100%
Klarissa3 weeks, 1 day ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When an ambassador opens his mouth and gives an opinion about troop levels in Afghanistan we know that their is a big void in leadership at the highest level.
Reply
The President is Commander in Chief.
It is disturbing that we have Powell, the ambassador, all of these meetings, and then we have news headlines that say:
"Gates: Obama picking best ideas among many options";
"Obama said to want revised Afghanistan options";
"Petraeus: Decision near on troops to Afghanistan";
"Obama may want more Afghan options";
"US envoy opposed to Afghan surge";
"After months of deliberating over Afghan war strategy - Obama rejects options, tells security team to try again";
"Obama may want more Afghan options";
"sources: Obama studies 4 war options". -
50%
Wolfie20073 weeks, 1 day ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I didn't know the reason our troops and NATO troops were in Afghanistan was to make sure the Karzai government wasn't corrupt. Silly me, I thought we were there to defeat the Taliban and Al Quita. Now I wonder who am I to believe an Obama appointee like Eikenberry or Obama's hand picked general, General McCrystal?
Reply-
0%
hyperbola3 weeks, 1 day ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama should never have let the "israel-firsters" foist off McChrystal on him. What is at stake is whether the large number of "israel-firsters" in the Pentagon or the President are in control of the country. We do NOT need the Israeli model of a country run by the military in America and especially NOT israel-first generals like McChrystal and Petraeus.
Reply
America Owned by Its Army
It is possible that the creation of an all-professional American army was the most dangerous decision ever taken by Congress. The nation now confronts a political crisis in which the issue has become an undeclared contest between Pentagon power and that of a newly elected president.
Barack Obama has yet to declare his decision on the war in Afghanistan, and there is every reason to think that he will follow military opinion. Yet he is under immense pressure from his Republican opponents to, in effect, renounce his presidential power, and step aside from the fundamental strategic decisions of the nation. ....
....Professional armies have often been considered a threat to their own societies. It was one of Frederick the Great’s own officers who described Prussia “as an army with a state, in which it was temporarily quartered, so to speak.” The French revolutionary statesman Mirabeau said that “war is Prussia’s national industry.” Considering the portion of the U.S. national budget that is now consumed by the Pentagon, much the same could be said of the United States.
The new army also has political ambitions. It now dominates U.S. foreign relations with a thousand bases worldwide and regional commanders like imperial proconsuls. Both General McChrystal and his superior, General David H. Petraeus, have been mentioned as future presidential candidates. The last general who became American president was Dwight Eisenhower. He is the one who warned Americans against “the military-industrial complex.”
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/11/08/america-...
-
More News
Fox News Politics
White House Approves Expansion of CIA's Drone Program in Pakistan
Cheering Crowd Greets Sarah Palin at Fort Hood
Rumsfeld's Office Rejects White House Explanation of Obama's Criticism
Senate's Progress on Health Care Bill Grinds to Halt Over Democratic Divisions
Obama Administration Seeks Federal Regulation of Nation's Subways
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.