Obama’s Afghanistan Strategy
29 March 2009 11:01 am by Taylor Marsh
There are innumerable opinions and analysis available on President Obama’s strategy going forward in Afghanistan. This is another; one that takes into account realities no one else is talking about. For one, that Vice President Joe Biden’s influence and expertise greatly influenced President Obama to take a more modest approach, for which everyone should be thankful. (So could a hit piece be far behind?) Biden’s criticism of Bush’s “Musharaff policy” came at a moment when few had the courage to offer it. Biden is the anti Cheney on foreign policy, but particularly military interventionism. So using Biden as a backdrop, what does Obama’s Afghanistan strategy mean and is it something deserving of support?
“Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course. Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable.” – President Barack Obama
Tom Ricks asks “is this it?” But it’s important to note that Mr. Ricks, as experienced a reporter as you’re going to find on Iraq, believes Obama will be forced to a different exit plan in that country, having to keep more troops there than has previously been discussed, because the worst in Iraq is yet to come, according to Ricks. So he doesn’t see Afghanistan getting what’s needed and being talked about today. He’s focused somewhere else. Ricks has a question on Pakistan: Finally, what about the Pakistani military? The saying is that most countries have militaries, while in Pakistan the military has a country.
Analysis: It’s not a small thing to say that we have little or no options when it comes to Pakistan’s military influence at this point. The only hope Obama has is adjusting aid to Pakistan with conditions and benchmarks, but also making sure that the billions given goes to institutional and societal shoring up. Obama emphasizing the Kerry-Lugar bill, which “authorizes $1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years — resources that will build schools and roads and hospitals, and strengthen Pakistan’s democracy”, I’d contend, is saying something to the Pakistani military. The corruption angle inside Pakistan as the aid flow is, however, a daunting challenge, but that’s nothing new. See Iraq. (As an aside, the 82nd Airborne’s role alone should be reason enough to cheer.)
This brings me to a conference call that was held Friday hosted by the National Security Network (full audio here). Bullet points of the call:
1. Obama’s strategy moves outside and beyond Kabul.
2. While so many skeptics on Obama re-invigorating our Afghanistan policy stress the exit, Dobbins (former Special Envoy to Afghanistan and director of International Security at RAND) expressed appreciation for Obama not talking about leaving while he’s unveiling his strategy: Look at Haiti, Bosnia, said Dobbins, even Iraq. “Setting an end date is counterproductive.”
3. Dobbins and Their (director of the Future of Afghanistan Project at the United States Institute of Peace who just returned from the region) emphasized that Pakistan is now linked to Obama’s Afghanistan strategy. Their stating that Pakistan will no longer get a pass on aiding Afghan Taliban.
4. On Pakistan, Dobbins stated flatly that “Pakistan has been outed,” and they’re on the “international agenda” now.
5. India is now in the mix where Pakistan is concerned, a secondary reality in Obama’s Afghan strategy, obviously, with an understanding that for Pakistan India is a prime focus.
Analysis: Talk is cheap and this area of the world is a tough as it gets, which is why Ricks and many others are skeptical. The other reality is that as spring approaches, regardless of Obama’s strategy, Afghanistan is about to get bloody. Whether Americans are ready for this is a big question, especially considering our deep financial stressors that are anything but peripheral, is a real concern. Additionally, Dover policy on returning fallen soldiers could cause Obama problems. Presidents who are committed to action in foreign lands often lose public support quickly, which is a real danger for Obama in these economic times, but also with Mexico flaring.
Long War Journal’s analysis is very pessimistic, except when it comes to troop increase. But for those of you who don’t follow this blog, this is not unexpected analysis.
Analysis: On Pakistan, LWJ misses the point by a mile, while citing Lashkar-e-Taiba. Even as they mention Kerry-Lugar, LWJ completely ignores the new civil focus on aid. As for their analysis, the troop “surge” as they call it, though Gates does not, is the one bright spot they see, while they miss the importance of the central focus of Obama’s Afghanistan plan, which is a “civilian surge” that includes civil aid as well as focus beyond Kabul, to Pakistan, which comes with strings. Additionally, but predictably, Iran is seen as irrelevant, as their involvement before Bush put them in the “axis of evil” is unwisely written off.
This brings me to a story in the Times today: US and Iran open Afghanistan peace talks.
… Friday’s meeting was held under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, a six-member regional security group including Russia, China and central Asian states, to discuss combating terrorism and drug trafficking in Afghanistan. Those present included Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary-general, the foreign ministers of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and senior British diplomats.
The US and Iranian officials spoke within minutes of each other. Akhundzadeh told delegates that narcotics represent a serious threat to the region and no country could fight the trade alone. He revealed that Iran seizes three tons of opium on its border every day.
The United States and Iran have not had full diplomatic ties for almost three decades. “We see this as a very productive area for engagement in the future,” said an American official after the meeting. [...]
Analysis: If the report in the Times is correct, this is the smartest way to begin our dialogue with Iran; using an issue of mutual interest and shared concern as a means to open up conversations that were closed under Bush-Cheney. It also is on a separate track from Middle East policy, not a minor strategy. A testing of the possible beginning at a shared point of great concern, Afghanistan. Nothing focuses the mind like mutual interests founded in preventing potentially catastrophic consequences. That Iran also has influences in Pakistan shouldn’t be ignored, though trust is a long way away.
The Washington Post has brought together several analysts of varied opinions. From Bacevich:
… Ask yourself: When it comes to American prosperity and security, which matters more — Afghanistan or Mexico? The question answers itself. So if the United States has billions of dollars lying idle that it wishes to invest in development and security assistance, why prioritize Afghanistan?
Analysis: This falls in line with what Col. Macgregor said at Cato, when he emphasized that the Caribbean basin is the most important area to America’s safety, with homeland security a more pressing challenge than the Af-Pak region. That is taking the long view, which is of great importance, no doubt. However, I find it impossible to view any arena of the world more pressing than Afghanistan, Pakistan, and by extension, India, with the Kashmir issue absolutely critical to be addressed and may go a long way to helping us inside Pakistan.
Abu Muqawama, with the comments also a must read. Katulis on this one: There are several must-read blogs out there – the COIN nerds have some interesting insights, but let’s face it, their musings tend to be a bit blinkered by self-referential navel gazing with an overemphasis on the U.S. military and what U.S. boots on the ground do.
This leads me to the cable talking heads, especially Mr. Matthews, who seem wrapped up in Halberstam’s “best and brightest” foreshadowing, seeing Democratic Vietnam escalation at every turn in Afghanistan. Like many of the critics on Afghanistan the concern for Obama owning Afghanistan is their paramount worry, wondering if it will become…. well, you know the drill. Talking about 9/11 as the reason we initially invaded Afghanistan, while sloughing off what happened to that country when Bush turned to preemption in Iraq.
In the final analysis what everyone seems to want is certainty. Good luck with that, because Obama’s strategy in the Af-Pak region offers anything but certainty. That’s what happens when you make war. As Amb. Dobbins said in the NSN call, leaving isn’t the issue right now and an exit strategy on the openings of a new strategy is “counterproductive.”
Bottom line: There is no exit from undeclared wars, no armistice, nothing, which we have yet to learn, so war remains too expensive on all fronts. You simply have to stop.
So to those critics of Obama’s strategy, regardless of details, there is only one question left to ask. What is the alternative to what we’re about to do and what outcome would we leave in our wake if our involvement simply ended, especially for the women, on whom any stable nation depends?
If you have been following events in Iraq, you must have noted how the logical and common sense conclusions about the inevitable collapse of the “success of the surge” are indeed unfolding. Sunni “Sons of Iraq” are being rounded up in sweeps by American and shiite Iraqi forces, and many “Sons of Iraq” are threatening to quit because they have not been paid in months. As I have predicted many times on TWN, when the money dries up, so too will the “success of the surge”.
So, Obama’s promise of combat disengagement in Iraq becomes an impossible promise to uphold. Meanwhile, if the “success of the surge” holds together just long enough for Obama to drastically increase our troop levels in Afghanistan, and possibly deploy troops to Pakistan, we may indeed find ourselves with THREE very hot military fronts, with inadequate troops in Iraq to quell a resurging Sunni/Shiite civil conflict.
This isn’t rocket science, nor does it require the brainpower of a bunch of think tank eggheads. These crazy pieces of crap in Washington are driving this bus full speed at a brick wall. When one considers that they aren’t stupid, and they too must be reaching common sense conclusions, one has to believe that they’re driving this way on purpose. If I was a Muslim, I’d be damned worried right now, because if these crazy bastards in Washington can’t exterminate you with troops, then there’s no telling what they’ll drag out of their tool chest.
(cross posted @TWN)
Taylor, good one!
If Obama wants to go to Afghanistan he needs to borrow Bush’s money trucks. You know the ones he used to throw 100 thousand dollar footballs out to the Iraqi people.
Same war just a different more difficult location.
The cons on Fox Sunday were all complimentary of the Admins. Afghan plan… that gives me pause. But perhaps it’s just that the right thing to do is going to piss off the left.
Obama has said all along that the fight is in Afghanistan. And he still says we will be out of Iraq in 19 months I believe.
Geo I refuse to watch Fox, and even hubby this a.m. told me to change the station in the car. He said, he’d had enough of Lamebrain and his ilk.
Al Qaeda has been in Afghanistan since before 9/11 and Bush screwed it up. But now after reading all the stuff against his admin, I’m surprised he hasn’t been run out of the US. He and Cheney.
PissedOffAmerican says:
29 March 2009 at 1:38 pm
If you want to be taken serious around here you might want to expunge words like “exterminate” from your argument.
Hey Boohall, it isn’t going to be easy, that’s for sure, but BO knows that by now.
Well, Betsy, there is a lot of evidence in reporting today that Iraq isn’t all Cheney says it is these days. The following is just one of the many troubling stories out of Iraq, which adds to Ricks’ case:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802073.html
Taylor Marsh says:
29 March 2009 at 4:49 pm
PissedOffAmerican says:
29 March 2009 at 1:38 pm
If you want to be taken serious around here you might want to expunge words like “exterminate” from your argument.
_
I’m convinced POA is a reincarnation of someone that used to post here with strikingly similar rhetoric.
I especially like “These crazy pieces of crap in Washington” and “When one considers that they aren’t stupid, and they too must be reaching common sense conclusions” used in the same sentence…
Out a’ there….
WHITE HOUSE ASKED
GM CEO TO STEP DOWN
The White House confirmed Wagoner was leaving at the government’s behest after The Associated Press reported his immediate departure, without giving a reason.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/business/30auto.html?_r=2&hp
Taylor, I read that article in the Washington Post. There is also an article in the New Yorker, long but very good.
I thought Obama’s words, “Remember, we have to sell this,” said it all. We’re just too pooped. I’d like to see us finish Iraq properly and successfully. I just don’t see the will of the people to root out every single Al Quaida/Taliban in Afghanastan.
I think 4000 trainers means zip, so I took it to mean, he’s backing off from that campaign promise.
GeoT says:
29 March 2009 at 6:02 pm
PissedOffAmerican is welcome to post here, though I’d appreciate he take the suggestion I posted above. It isn’t helpful to accuse someone of reincarnating their persona. It leads nowhere.
Yeah, Betsy, I know the one. It’s good.
Yesterday, I had my 2nd right-winger complain that Obama needs to pay attention to the economy – not his basketball bracket. If you guys hear similar, you might appreciate my reaction.
“I don’t recall anyone complaining when George Bush threw out the first pitch at Yankee Stadium, after 9/11.”
Taylor Marsh says:
29 March 2009 at 7:00 pm
GeoT says:
29 March 2009 at 6:02 pm
PissedOffAmerican is welcome to post here, though I’d appreciate he take the suggestion I posted above. It isn’t helpful to accuse someone of reincarnating their persona.
_____
I didn’t accuse anyone of anything, I made a personal observation.
I see, Taylor.
Uhm, is it ok if I use “SAUTE” to describe Israel’s use of white phosphorous on Palestinian civilians? Or would you rather I use the term “FRY”?
And what about raining millions of cluster bomblets on civilian populations in Lebanon? “BIRTH CONTROL”????
How about stopping humanitarian aid at the border? “FORCED DIETING”?
And destroying farmland and olive groves? Shall I call that “WEED CONTROL”?
And settlement expansion, do you have an acceptable term for that, or do you mind if I call it LAND THEFT?
I’m sorry Taylor, but its pretty hard to mince words after seeing a few photogs of what just occurred in Gaza. Having followed Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians for some time now, I happen to believe that they are hell bent on erasing the Palestinian people. And you commit genocide by eradication. Thats what I honestly believe they are doing. So no, I will not call it by another name, because I firmly believe I have used the right term.
You might recall, during this latest BLOOBATH in Gaza, Palestinian civilians were marched into a home, then the home was bombed. There is more than one account of this incident, and it is widely believed to be a credible accusation. Now, I ask you, what is the difference between marching Jews into poisonous showers, or marching Palestinians into buildings that are subsequently bombed?
Now, if you choose to ban me because I am not willing to tow the propaganda line and advance the ridiculous premise that Israel is raining white phosphorous on civilians, expanding the settlements, and stopping essential human needs from entering Gaza as “an act of defense”, than so be it. But be aware you are banning me from expressing a heart felt opinion, using what I believe is the proper semantics, for egregious war crimes that can only be motivated by racism, and the effort to EXTERMINATE the Palestinian people. If you do not accept that motive, than many of Israel’s actions become inexplicable, and clearly self-defeating.
Sorry if I bruised your sensitivities, but maybe in regards to the ISR/PAL issue, we could use a few bruised sensitivities. Perhaps with an adequate amount of bruising, we’ll stop subsidizing war crimes that indeed can be viewed as the execution of a modern day holocaust.
Anyone watching 60 minutes? A really bad internet worm was just featured.
And, to put my use of the word in context on this thread, we now are responsible for the deaths of over one million Iraqi non-combatants, and we have displaced millions more. We have polluted the environment with deadly DU dust, and, if Tuwaitha is any indication, possibly exposed generations of Iraqis to high risk of cancers and birth defects. The sanctions alone are believed to have killed over 500 thousand Iraqi children. The infant mortality rate has skyrocketed since 1991, and the infrastructure is still, for all practical purposes, razed. Taking all these factors into consideration, perhaps “eradication” isn’t such a far fetched term. With the far right’s insinuation of a cultural war, Israel’s actions, and our own very real military agressions, we are a hair’s width from this thing exploding into a very real conflict between cultures.
I just didn’t have the sense that Obama’s policy was any more relevant than Madonna adopting a child.
Just a news blip.
Taylor are you familar with the book Defense Meltdown? I think that is the name. It is written by three guys who go after waste in the Pentegon. I saw them on Book TV on C-Span. I did not catch all of the discussion but I did catch a segment in which they really praised McCaskill for voting against the Ass. Sec. Of Defense who they say is a big part of the business as usual waste. Interesting.
For what it is worth, Geo, I have never posted here before a few days ago, with ANY personna. And I have no reason to “switch” personnas, as I am not shy about my opinions, and don’t really care if you buy into them or not. I doubt it interests Taylor, but Steve Clemons and I had an email exchange once that would irrefutably establish my distaste for people that post under a number of screen names in an effort to appear to be multiple people. Point being, if you have any doubts, Taylor could certainly take it up with Steve, who I am certain would buttress my denial that I would post under multiple names.
Look, I’m abrasive online. Its the manner I’ve chosen to express myself over the internet. Some people love it, some people are highly offended by it. I have my motives, and over the course of time, I have proven to myself that my motives and tactics are sound, and are producing the effect on people that I have hoped they would.
But don’t concern yourself unduly. I do not intend to be a regular fixture here, and for that I am reasonably sure Taylor will breathe a sigh of relief. As will the rest of the quilting bee here. The blog has a very sacharin feel to me, and the comment section really dioesn’t seem to have the depth that Taylor’s observations deserve.
Hmm, POA I wonder who you really are.
Quite frankly I read your comments with interest. I am sure that what you have written has been well researched, so I read them because I like to know what is going on and how people feel and think.
I don’t belong to any quilting bee, and if that was meant to get a rise out of people, so be it. It didn’t get a rise out of me at all.
And for your info, I do feel for the Palestinian and Iraqi people. I don’t like what Israel is doing to them and I don’t like what we are doing to the Iraqis. And for that matter I don’t like how we are treating our Veterans. But that’s another issue.
Betsy….
I’m a high end finish carpenter in Central California, completely uninvolved politically. I am simply what I say I am, a pissed off American. Just one of the herd.
Well, while POA begs the usual question, even with one of his own in the White House, I’ll try to answer your question: Obama has chosen to lose slowly.
Naturally, Taylor, your question was a straw man: neener, neener, you have no strategy!
First, let’s be clear about the elephant in the room: Obama has chosen to take the path taken by Lyndon Johnson, Robert S. MacNamara, and McGeorge Bundy in 1965. He has chosen not to lose. In so doing, he has granted the strategic initiative to the Alliance of Al Qaeda and the Taleban. This situation is exactly analagous to the situation presented to General Giap and Ho by Johnson and Westmoreland.
At present, Al Qaeda’s “Shadow Army” and the Talib are allowed to train, rest, equip, and recruit in the FATA. The missile strikes are no strategic threat to them. They are merely publicity attacks on HVT’s by a feckless and deeply incompetent CIA that is hungry for success and is haunted by the prospect of an Iranian atomic bomb. In the late Sixties, Giap and Ho used the restraint of the Johnson Administration to whipsaw the Americans in offensive after offensive, using Cambodia, Laos, and North Vietnam itself as R&R depots for PAVN and Viet Minh training and cadre-building. The refusal of Johnson to deal with this reality cost the U.S. dearly at the negotiating table. Only Nixon’s strategic bombing campaign allowed the U.S. a decent exit, and even then, the North Vietnamese Army was still on the ground as a fighting force.
The same situation exists here. The alternative is clear, but Obama, like Johnson, is obsessed with his neo-Great Society, and will not take this path. Obama’s only alternative to win this war is to invade the Swat/Waziristan area and destroy the enemy to prevent them from growing in strength and regaining the ability to overthrow the Kabul Government, and, in time, threaten the U.S. Homeland. However, Obama does not have the stomach to pursue a campaign to exterminate Al Qaeda. But he does make a great speech.
The Democrats are not willing to do this as a party, however, and have rationalized themselves into a defeatist “exit strategy”. The Talib are not fooled by this. They smell victory in these statements. They know Obama’s heart is not in victory, and like Giap, they will press on.
Bush had the will to persevere and win. Obama does not. That’s a critical difference between the two men that will make itself felt as time goes by.
Matters are worse. Taylor Marsh and the Democratic Party are about to revisit 1965 and 1966. Having had their 1964, with an entire vista of victory and decades of One Party Rule laid out before them, it is all about to be cruelly snatched away from Democrats by little Pashtun religious fanatics who believe in the enslavement of women.
So much liberal entitlement, so quickly gone with the wind. A tragedy for the Afghan women, of course. But the liberals will quickly abandon them, like the Vietnamese, the Hmong, and the Cambodians, decades before.
“Well, while POA begs the usual question, even with one of his own in the White House…”
I don’t claim him. He is a media construct. And it happens to be the same media that greased the ways for this criminal George Bush and his satanic compatriot Cheney.
When one gets past the fluff, it obvious that Obama’s foreign policy has very little substantive difference than George Bush’s. Yeah, the line of bullshit differs slightly. But thats about it.
section9, I couldn’t disagree with you more. You sound like one of the wingnuts that I know. Believing in the criminals, i.e. Bush, Cheney, and Rummy is typical of your type.
With that I’m saying good night because I don’t have the stomach to argue with anyone tonight. It’s too damn late!
Wow, now the left wingnuts are visiting.
“Obama’s foreign policy has very little substantive difference than George Bush’s” –
How about not using torture (oh wait, maybe that doesn’t have anything to do with foreign policy)
Oh well, its amazing how Obama’s actions bring people out on the blogs (and btw, I am behind him and hope the BO administration is successful – but then again, the only direction our country had to go in is up since GWB took us to the absolute bottom.)(( are POA and Section9 the same person? Hmm. What great writing style)).
((((wait, could it be? – is Mark Haverty in the house?)))))))
“How about not using torture (oh wait, maybe that doesn’t have anything to do with foreign policy)”
Not only is Obama continuing some of Bush’s rendition policies, his Justice department is PROTECTING Donald Rumsfeld against lawsuits brought by detainees that were tortured and illegally detained. I strongly suggest you lose the naivete before you start slinging crap about “wingnuts”.
Your comment illustrates an extremely shallow knowledge about Obama’s ACTUAL ACTIONS, as opposed to his line of bullshit. If he is so opposed to torture, than why does he refuse to advocate criminal investigations, indictments, and prosecutions of those responsible? Why is he siding with the Bush Administration in regards to these lawsuits?
I don’t mind being called a “wingnut”, if you don’t mind being called ignorant, gullible, and uninformed.
http://www.pubrecord.org/commentary/744-the-obama-holder-panetta-legal-disconnect.html
The Obama-Holder-Panetta Legal Disconnect
Written by William Fisher
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 11:08
By William Fisher
Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Leon Panetta are all lawyers, And Holder and Panetta both work for Obama. Wouldn’t that suggest that they would agree on really important issues – at least in public?
Well, apparently they don’t. And Obama’s recent interview with the New York Times editorial board provides lots of examples.
During that session, President Obama stated categorically:
“We ultimately provide anybody that we’re detaining an opportunity through habeas corpus to answer to charges.”
Then how do we explain the conflicting position taken by the President’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, and the Department of Justice he runs?
In a filing in federal court, lawyers from Obama’s DOJ said that detainees held at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. That’s exactly the position taken by George W. Bush. And it’s not what the president told the New York Times.
Human rights advocacy groups argue that Bagram detainees should have the same rights as Guantanamo detainees because they are de facto under U.S. control.
The U.S. government is holding more than 600 prisoners at Bagram. Some claim they are victims of “extraordinary rendition” by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), while many more say they have been tortured and abused at the facility just outside Kabul. ….
Interesting, Taylor. Your comment area appears to have been hijacked.
Isn’t there a rule that we can’t talk more than you do? *L*
heh-heh. Hardly. They simply want to argue against Obama’s strategy, but have no plan to replace it. That said, I welcome some opposing viewpoints around here. Go get ‘em, Betsy!
POA – I shortened your article above. Anyone can look at it via the link. Utilize the link, give abstracts, but don’t paste the whole thing, please. Thanks.
Interesting reading POA posts. The only thing I got out of his posts was he wants us to pull all troops out of the Middle East, stop supporting Israel, and I guess just stick our heads in the sand. Its easy to complain about what Obama is trying to do, but I have heard nothing from anyone else that makes any sense. I will take a wait and see position, and see were this plan takes us before I start bitching.
Well, if having an alternative is the touchstone, quite a few folks around here should have their posting privileges revoked. I see a lot of Obama criticism, and not much in the way of helpful suggestions, from some regulars. (For the record, I don’t count “Time to bring in the Big Dawg” as constructive advice.)
I actually think that POA and Section 9 made some important points that deserve debate. But I’m not crazy about the way they chose to make their points. I assume they are here for discussion; otherwise, why bother to post? But you’re unlikely to encourage folks to join issues with you by insulting them as you have, POA.
“The only thing I got out of his posts was he wants us to pull all troops out of the Middle East, stop supporting Israel, and I guess just stick our heads in the sand”
I rest my case about the shallowness. First, where did I advocate pulling all the troops out of the Middle East? In fact, I commented on what I felt may be a very premature pull-out from Iraq.
As far as Israel goes, pulling all support is impossible. But certainly financial aid should hold conditions, beyond Hillary murmuring something about settlement expansion being “unhelpful” right on the cusp of Obama announcing further billions in aid to Israel. In fact, the expansion is illegal, as is raining white phosphorous on civilian populations. You don’t think there should be some conditions on the billions we give them?
Should I follow your example, and make some asinine shallow observation about your comment, like “The only thing I got out of her post is that she thinks we should continue to pay Israel to fry Palestinians in white phosphorous, shoot American citizens at protests, expand settlements, and do anything thing they want to, illegal or otherwise, because they know no matter what they do, we will still give them billions of dollars”
And as far as “sticking our heads in the sand”, isn’t that EXACTLY what we do in regards to Israel’s actions, the fact that we have killed over one million Iraqi non-combatants, the fact that we have completely poisoned their urban areas with DU dust, the fact that we have displaced almost a quarter of the population, and that, much to Taylor and section 9’s chagrin, (one would think by their comnments), set women’s right back to the stone age in Iraq? Prior to 1991, Iraq had one of the most liberal and open atmospheres of the Middle Eastern countries, with women enjoying all the educational and work place rights that men had. So don’t spit this “bury our heads in the sand” crap at me. Americans are pros at burying their heads in the sand. Me? I try to do the opposite.
Af-Pak Fever
The Obamaites go to war
by Justin Raimondo, March 29, 2009
The idea that anything has really changed, at least in the realm of foreign policy, with the ascension of Barack Obama to the White House, is now completely debunked by the administration’s latest pronouncement on the “Af-Pak” war. I quote from the “white paper” that accompanied the president’s spiel:
“The ability of extremists in Pakistan to undermine Afghanistan is proven, while insurgency in Afghanistan feeds instability in Pakistan. The threat that al-Qaeda poses to the United States and our allies in Pakistan – including the possibility of extremists obtaining fissile material – is all too real. Without more effective action against these groups in Pakistan, Afghanistan will face continuing instability.”
That’s from the introduction to a curiously obtuse document, one that never tries to justify its various listed “objectives” with anything other than the most perfunctory scaremongering – precisely what the Bushies used to do. Remember the mushroom-cloud rhetoric that clouded the debate over the Iraq intervention? Averring that the mere possibility Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear weapons posed such an imminent threat that definitive evidence was beside the point, then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice famously declared:”We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” These nukes, the White House and its allies claimed, could pass into the hands of terrorists, who would then have the capacity to nuke New York. In making the case for war with Iraq, the Bushies consistently conjured this fear of radioactive horror, the mental detritus of late-night sci-fi movies, Cold War memories of the Cuba missile crisis, and “duck and cover” drills in the schoolrooms of the Fifties and early Sixties.
This nuclear threat to the United States, supposedly posed by al-Qaeda hiding in the Pakistani hinterlands, is nowhere mentioned in the white paper except in that one instance. In fact, there is zero evidence that Pakistan’s 40-or-so nukes are in any danger, and none is cited. The idea that al-Qaeda and its allies are about to seize control of Islamabad and commandeer the country’s nuclear arsenal, is the sort of fantasy one might expect to find in a paperback thriller, or The Weekly Standard. As recently as a year ago, Adm. Mike Mullen, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, opined that Pakistan’s nukes were well-protected and there was little likelihood of them falling into the hands of al-Qaeda. This could be because, as Richard Sale reports,
“So while the nukes of any country are allegedly in danger of hijacking, apparently the new safeguards are such that the slightest error in procedure renders the weapon null and void, a system much like the one the Russian used with their portable nuclear weapons systems.”
More here.
While Obama didn’t go nuclear, so to speak, in justifying his Af-Pak fever, he followed in the footsteps of his predecessor in waving the bloody shirt of 9/11 as the one reliable way to whip up war hysteria:
“So let me be clear: al-Qaeda and its allies – the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks – are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al-Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.”
While bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership recruited Mohammed Atta to carry out the 9/11 attacks from their safe haven in Afghanistan, the actual planning took place in Hamburg, Germany, where Atta and his cell of al-Qaeda cadre set up shop for years before the plan was executed, and various meetings in Malaysia, Florida, and Maryland.
continues….
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/03/29/af-pak-fever/
I assume they are here for discussion; otherwise, why bother to post? But you’re unlikely to encourage folks to join issues with you by insulting them as you have, POA.
This is a good point that isn’t “shallowness,” POA.
Well now, that depends. Is the topic “Obama’s Afghanistan Strategy”, or is my trademark posting style the topic? It seems your commentors are quite proficient at attacking the delivery while ignoring the message. Thats not shallow?
Sigh…. POA, I for one am willing to engage with you. I suspect others are too. But as you noted, your “trademark posting style” is an acquired taste at best.
My question to you is the following. Are you here to debate issues, or is this just performance art? Assuming it is the former, is it not possible to ease up a little bit on the invective? What you decry as shallowness, others see as courtesy and mutual respect. And, yes, since this is a community, folks feel free to talk about less weighty topics once in a while. I rarely join these discussions, but I do appreciate them.
In-depth discussions and a sense of community fostered by shared interests are not mutually exclusive. So I hope you will stay. It sounds to me like you have much to contribute.
AliceP says:
29 March 2009 at 11:02 pm
((((wait, could it be? – is Mark Haverty in the house?)))))))
______
Wow! now that would be something… but Haverty had manners as I recall.
GeoT says:
30 March 2009 at 7:03 pm
AliceP says:
29 March 2009 at 11:02 pm
((((wait, could it be? – is Mark Haverty in the house?)))))))
______
How about Miss Malevolent?
Actually, its quite comical watching you all get your panties in a wad because I was rude to someone that called me a “wingnut”, and to someone else that proceeded to purposely misrepresent what it is I said.
As Betsy found out, I return courtesy with courtesy.
You want to discuss the topic on this thread, or do you want to selectively, (therefore hypocritically), whine about my rudeness while ignoring the rudeness of one of one of your clique members?
I raised a number of points, above, ABOUT THE TOPIC, and posed some questions, ABOUT THE TOPIC. So stop whining. Its a hell of a site more than some of you did.
Okay, you answered my question — it’s performance art. The record will reflect that, before the wingnut charge, you made insulting comments about a “quilting bee,” “saccharin feel” etc. So it’s pretty clear that discourtesy was returned with discourtesy.
In any event, the reason I’m disinclined to comment is because my position on these issues is pretty clear. You can check the archives, as torture and Afghanistan have come up repeatedly here. Bottom-line: The notion that Obama is a war-monger like Bush because of his Af-Pak strategy, or that his legal positions on executive privilege give the lie to his positions on torture, is arrant nonsense. And indicative of an inability to grasp nuance, such as the difference between legal and policy constraints.
“Sacharin” was a reality based observation, not an insult.
“Quilting bee” was a tongue in cheek observation about the amount of women posting here. It was certainly chauvanistic, which is kinda out of character for me. For that I apologize. But does it rise to the level of giving you cause to snivel? Not in my opinion.
Like I said; comical. And hypocritical.
Regardless, honestly, I really don’t give a shit about your opinion. Your assertion that I have accused Obama of being “a war-monger like Bush because of his Af-Pak strategy” is absolute straw, and I suspect you offered it because thats the best you’ve got. And it ain’t much.
Now Hillary, THERES a hawk that might just give Bush a run for his money.
“But don’t concern yourself unduly. I do not intend to be a regular fixture here, and for that I am reasonably sure Taylor will breathe a sigh of relief. As will the rest of the quilting bee here.”
OH MA GOOOOODNIS! Quite the lil ol legend in yer own MIND there aintcha!
Thank you for the long-overdue apology. Now we are getting somewhere. I’m known to insist on extending courtesy to every poster here. That even includes you.
As for the substance of my comment, it’s clear that you were making a moral equivalence argument: that, when it comes to torture and Middle East strategy, Obama is indistinguishable from Bush. Which is so ludicrous on its face as to not warrant a response. But if you want one, you can check the archives. I’ve commented plenty on Obama’s legal defense of Bush/Cheney, torture, and the war in Afghanistan.
By the way, you are guilty of the charge you falsely accuse me of: rather than answer the charge and rebut it, you resort to insults and more performance art dialogue. Dude, those are like dummy flares — once you throw ‘em out, I know I’m locked in on the target.
Plus, I’m pretty confident you wouldn’t be quite so aggressive if were having this conversation face-to-face. But since we are confining this conversation to the virtual world, I’m constrained to point out that there’s no point using ten-dollar words if you can’t spell ‘em. “Saccharin” has two “c”s, not one. I ignored it the first time as a typo, but you did it again, so it’s clearly a misspelling. And “chauvanistic” is spelled “chauvinistic.”
Out of curiousity, I went to The Washington Note to check out POA’s postings. As I charged, his whole schtick is that Obama is as bad as Bush/Cheney. This is from Friday, March 27:
“Note, before this piece of shit Obama was elected, I on numerous occassions stated that I believed he was fraud, a trojan horse backed by the same powers that put the pathetic George Bush, and the satanic Dick Cheney in power.
After all, Obama was created and marketed by the same media machine that greased the ways for the criminal acts of the Bush Administration, from the theft of two elections, to the cover-up of the true nature of the 9-11 attacks, to the invasion of Iraq. Obama is proving me right. Running on a platform of peace, the lying piece of shit is escalating our military adventure in the Middle East, ignoring Israeli war crimes, maintaining a combat presence in Iraq, and staffing his cabinet with zionists, neocons, defense industry insiders, lobbyists, and Bush loyalists.
America was conned. This guy is every bit as dangerous as George Bush and Dick Cheney. Maybe more so.
Uh oh. Now we’re into the realm of spelling corrections. Cute. OK, I admit it, I mispell words. There, feel better now, you jackass?
Perhaps you will tell me how Obama’s policies in the Middle East, thus far, are polar to, or less agressive than, George Bush’s?
The rhetoric about Iran’s nuclear program, which, BTW is perfectly LEGAL in regards to the NPR Treaty, is IDENTICAL to Bush’s in regards to exagerating the threat. IN FACT, the EXACT SEMANTICS are being used to describe Iran’s “illicit” nuclear program that are being used on the AIPAC website. Care to underscore for us what is “illicit” about Iran’s nuclear program?
And what are the differences, thus far, in our relationship with Israel? Considering that Obama just committed to the continued aid sent to Israel, right on the heels of BLATANT AND UNDENIABLE WAR CRIMES committed by Israel, do you see a shift in policy there? I think Obama’s silence during the Freeman castration says volumes, don’t you agree? As does our Secretary of State’s deafening silence about an American citizen being gravely injured in a foreign country by foreign troops, SHOT IN THE HEAD AT CLOSE RANGE, while peacefully protesting the ILLEGAL THEFT of Palestinian land.
And, uh, do you see Obama’s actions in Pakistan as less agressive than George Bush’s? Is it not true that he has ESCALATED the drone attacks, as well as escalated the rhetoric?
“War monger” is YOUR term, not mine. It is not a term I would apply to Obama. I think he is stuck in a huge catastrophic catch 22 handed to him by George Bush. But the fact that he is not to blame for the situation does not diminish the volatility of the situation. Nor does it give us reason to believe he is anymore prone to deal with it competently than George Bush did. I see many reasons for pessimism, not the least of which is this horseshit about simply relabeling combat troops in Iraq, as if calling them by another name makes them less than combat troops.
But regardless, let me say that your suggestion that I expend the time to “check the archives” to get a firm grasp on your opinions is lazy crap on your end, and extends far less courtesy to this debate than I have extended here. I have at least tried to explain my position, where all you have done is snivel and moan like a ginnie with with a burr under its packsaddle. You don’t like my posting? Don’t read my posts.
In the meantime, what exactly is inaccurate about the following?
“Running on a platform of peace, the lying piece of shit is escalating our military adventure in the Middle East, ignoring Israeli war crimes, maintaining a combat presence in Iraq, and staffing his cabinet with zionists, neocons, defense industry insiders, lobbyists, and Bush loyalists”
And no, I will not “check the archives” in search of your answer.
ogenec says:
31 March 2009 at 7:40 am
____
thanks for the research notes… In my book anyone who refers to the President as “a piece of shit” deserves at minimum, to be discounted for the ret of his/her opinions. Which is what I will do.
POA: “I am a “high end” finish carpenter in central California”
I have NEVER heard a carpenter or any craftsperson refer to themselves as “high end” (they let others say it, if it’s true)
POA, lazy spelling evinces lazy thought. I learned that as a kid, and it’s a mantra I adhere to. So when I see people using big words that they can’t even spell, well, I completely discount the argument. Plus your posts are way too long. We got the gist of your argument sometime ago — Obama is a lying piece of shit. And possibly worse than Bush. The End. You don’t need such copious posts to make that point.
That point, by the way, is utterly unoriginal. We’ve heard it here many times before, and from people who write, spell, and think much better than you do. And not only is the argument unoriginal, but it’s internally inconsistent as a matter of logic. In one breath, you concede that Obama was handed a catch-22. In the very next breath, you assert that he is a “trojan horse.” The first comment suggests that his policy “mistakes” are well-intentioned, however incompetent. The second suggests quite the opposite: that he is a man of war masquerading as a man of peace, and his professions of peace are mere obfuscations designed to conceal his real, Bush-like tendencies. Either line of attack can be true. But both cannot simultaneously be true.
So, yes, check the archives if you want my response. Because your “arguments” (and I’m being very charitable) are not worth any of my brainpower. And your puerile, adolescent, faux-manly man tirades don’t impress me either. That stuff may work over at the circle jerk you’ve got going at The Washington Note. I bet you’re quite the man there. But over here, you just come across as a three-year old with early onset Tourette’s.
ogenec says:
31 March 2009 at 5:11 pm
But over here, you just come across as a three-year old with early onset Tourette’s.
______
That Sir, puts you in the running for best post quote of the year… but it’s only March.
Ohhhhhhhh now I get it POA is a 9/11 conspiracy nut, the puzzle is now complete:
_____
Posted by PissedOffAmerican, Mar 28 2009, 12:58PM
@ Washington Note by Steve Clemons:
“After all, Obama was created and marketed by the same media machine that greased the ways for the criminal acts of the Bush Administration, from the theft of two elections, to the cover-up of the true nature of the 9-11 attacks”
____
Cuckoo Clock
“I have NEVER heard a carpenter or any craftsperson refer to themselves as “high end””
Then you have undoubtedly never been exposed to a true high end aspect of the trades. If you’ve spent any time reading Architectual Digest, you’ve seen my work. And its a sure bet you’ve heard of a number of people I have done work for. And yes, I’m proud of it, and you don’t get to the top of your field without an ego. To tell you I’m a “finish carpenter” could mean packing a nail gun around some tract shooting baseboard on crackerboxes. Betsy asked, I told her. You don’t like it? Shove it.
Ogenec…
You’ve said absolutely NOTHING this entire thread. Screw the archives. Why in God’s name would I expend the time to research your bullshit?
Do either of you yahoos ever say anything intelligent, or is this crap the best you got? You’re like a couple of hemorhoids that are starting to itch.
PissedOffAmerican says:
31 March 2009 at 10:58 pm
you don’t get to the top of your field without an ego… (and a foul mouth I assume)
You don’t like it? Shove it.
_____
thanks for the suggestion… I’ve got the perfect spot in mind… very shady, brace yourself.
Are you sure you’re not a 30 yo dude from Jersey?
POS, I have a deal for you that will end this right quick. You don’t check the archives, and I won’t respond to your lurid, illogical claims about Obama.
PissedOffAmerican says:
31 March 2009 at 10:58 pm
____
“High end finish carpenter” = unemployed nail pounder with enough free time to spend all day pushing the BS line that Israel is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
you’re a high end something all right.
see copious spewing BS here:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/003834.php
“unemployed nail pounder with enough free time to spend all day pushing the BS line that Israel is responsible for the 9/11 attacks”
Well well, the ignorant buffoon has absolutely NOTHING to say on topic, but he can definitely lie about what was said on a thread at TWN.
I invite anyone that cares to, look at the link he provided, and read the thread in its entirety.
Look, GEO, you’re an asshole. It can’t be denied. You’ve proven it on this thread. And on the other threads, all you offer is superficial crap. You’re a world class natterer, I imagine you’ve spent a confused eternity always skirting around the edge of intelligent conversation.
Like I said, Taylor deserves better than you superficial little coffee klatch assholes. Perhaps thats why I never heard of Taylor, or her blog, before she posted over at TWN and linked to her site.
PissedOffAmerican says:
01 April 2009 at 9:31 am
“Look, GEO, you’re an asshole. It can’t be denied.”
____
yeah, but I have human DNA left in my bloodstream.
____
“I imagine you’ve spent a confused eternity always skirting around the edge of intelligent conversation.”
No I gravitate towards it that’s why I’m repulsed by you.
PissedOffAmerican says:
01 April 2009 at 9:31 am
BTW you do know that the other posters at TWN know you’re a joke as well, right? Or have you lost all perspective?
okay I take it back you believe it was only a specific 5 Israelis in on the scheme:
________
Posted by PissedOffAmerican, Jan 16 2009, 10:03PM – Link
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html
The Five Dancing Israelis
Arrested On 9-11
As the world watched in disbelief and asked the question…
…Mossad operatives were seen dancing with joy.
_____
I repeat… “Cuckoo Clock”