Did Tom Foley ruin Mike Fedele's day?

war? (4.00 / 2)

No disrespect to Mr. Foley and Mr. Fedele intended,

But did anyone else notice that our president just committed the U.S. to a huge military escalation in a war that is probably unwinnable in any rational sense of that word, and that lots more Americans and Afghans are now going to die?  

And that billions more of our tax dollars -- that COULD have been spent on health care and on jobs -- will now be going to sustain a fairly pointless war?  

And that it's almost certain that when these 30,000 troops fail in whatever their "mission" is imagined to be, the generals will muscle our president into sending thousands more troops ("to protect the ones that are already there...")??

Just wondering....  that's all.....

---

by: iBlog @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 14:35:38 PM CST

It's not certain at all (0.00 / 0)

..that Obama would send more troops given that he's set a July 2011 to begin withdrawing troops, if conditions improve. Therein lies the rub, of course, but it seems to me he's given McChrystal and the Afghans a timetable.

---

by: Scarce @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 16:18:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Conditions improve? (0.00 / 0)

Oh sure things will be just dandy. It won't take long at all.

---

by: Danny @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 17:02:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's EXACTLY what he said he would do during the campaign (4.00 / 1)

Did people think he was kidding or did they just choose to project their views over what candidate Obama said?

I voted for Pres Obama knowing this was coming.Anyone who voted for him and didn't was only fooling themselves.

---

by: ctkeith @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 17:36:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

..with the flipside that combat forces would be withdrawing from Iraq by Aug 31 2010.  

---

by: Scarce @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 17:49:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Here's the thing (0.00 / 0)

On the Democratic Side our choice came down to Hillary(who was more hawkish than Obamaon Afganistan) or Obama and all the Republicans were crazy-ass full fledged Neocons who wanted not only a bigger force in Afganistan but were and still are itching for an even bigger war(Iran).

I don't agree with the premise that a stable Afganistan is  vital to the USAs  national Security or that sending in 30,000 has a chance in hell of creating a stable Afganistan but Pres. Obama ran and won election on that and deserves the opportunity to institute the policy he ran on and our support for at least the 18 month period he's asking for to see if he can acheive any positive results.

PS- If I were POTUS,The Generals and the CIA director would have already been told I expect Bin Ladens head on my desk within 6 months or I'll expect their resignations.

---

by: ctkeith @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 18:48:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yep. We all knew it was coming. (0.00 / 0)

Doesn't mean they supported this position just because they voted for him. Same can be said for all of the issues.

Last weekend Wolf Blitzer asked Seymour Hersh if he thought 30 or 40 thousand troops would help there and he said no. Blitzer then asked him what would make a difference?

Hersh's answer: "400,000 more troops"

Funny? Isn't that what I told Dodd in September?

By Genral Petraeus' own standard that is how many soldiers would be needed to effectively stabelize Afghanistan. Accounting for US, UN and even the Afghanistan soldiers that have been trained up to provide security there are nowhere near enough. And there will never be anywhere near enough without a draft. That is an 800 pound guerilla that nobody will address.

Drinking Liberally in New Milford
ePluribus Media

---

by: Connecticut Man1 @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 20:30:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oddly enough (4.00 / 3)

..with these additional troops the U.S. will have about as many troops in place when they're finally deployed as the Soviets did in 1985---about the same time they began getting crushed by the Afghanis.

The Soviet armed forces that invaded Afghanistan in December 1979 consisted of about 40,000 officers and men and their equipment. The fierce resistance by Afghan guerrilla forces mujahidiin, literally meaning warriors engaged in a holy war. forced the Soviets to increase the size and sophistication of their military units, and in late 1985 a United States government official estimated that Soviet units in Afghanistan comprised about 118,000 men, of which about 10,000 were reported to be in the Soviet secret police and other special units.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/...

---

by: Scarce @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 23:10:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

With a minor difference. (0.00 / 0)

The US has some allies in Afghan soldiers and police. But they are not what I would call reliable. If it came to a real fight most would probably turn on us or just walk away completely.

If and when they do? We have trained them well in our own tactics and armed them to the teeth.  


Drinking Liberally in New Milford
ePluribus Media

---

by: Connecticut Man1 @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 09:08:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

my president right or wrong?..... (4.00 / 1)

I voted for Obama DESPITE the fact that he supported a bigger war in Afghanistan.

Like many progressives, I had hoped that his political strategists had convinced him that, to be elected, he had to look "macho" on SOMEthing.  I had assumed that Obama was way too smart to actually believe that Afghanistan is anything OTHER than another Vietnam , waiting to suck up time and money from his social agenda just as Vietnam stifled much of Johnson's "Great Society" (He had plans for so much more...)

I ALSO assumed that Obama fulfilled his tough-guy pledge when he threw 20,000 more troops into the Afghan quagmire in March.  And when, surprise surprise, things only got WORSE over there.

In any event, no one who voted for Obama has any obligation to support him on wrong-headed policies - no matter WHAT campaign promises he tossed out.   He must be judged on the merits of his decisions as president every day.  Excuses to the contrary are a bit childish and embarrassing, don't you think?

So what are we getting now?  The audacity of hopeless escalation?

As for the Obama timetables?  The fact is, we have virtually no control over conditions in Afghanistan .  These timetables, like Bush's, are strictly PR.  Westmoreland - oops, I mean McChrystal - is already telling Afghan officials not to worry about any timetables (THEY know that Afghanistan is many, many years away from having a functional military... or a functional anything else.) And Gates told Lieberman the same thing at hearings yesterday.

We are heading down a nasty road to nowhere good.....

So if I'm even HALF right, then what are we all going to do about it????????

---

by: iBlog @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 04:15:02 AM CST

Wait a minute (0.00 / 0)

You actually thought Pres Obama was lying in order to trick people into voting for him and now that he is doing EXACTLY what he promised he would you're all disappointed?

Next time you vote for President I suggest you listen to what the candidate says and not project things onto that person that make voting for them more palatable

Most of us here,and Pres Obama himself,were against the Surge in Iraq and although I still don't think it was the great success that many do it,along with buying off tens of thousands of Sunnis,has made Iraq more stable(for a while anyway).

 

---

by: ctkeith @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 06:54:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

on campaign promises (0.00 / 0)

By that logic, we should be castigating Mr. Obama daily for the campaign promises he has NOT kept.  Would you like to go first???

As I said, I voted for Obama DESPITE his Afghan promises.  Haven't yet found a candidate who I agree with 100% on everything....   And yes, I am hugely disappointed that now, a year or more after that campaign promise, with all the new facts and history and 20,000 additional troops, no saner strategies have emerged.

As for those reassuring timelines?  Exhibit A:

(in today's NYT)

"Eight hours later on the House side, Mr. Gates was still answering the same question when he said: "I have adamantly opposed deadlines. I opposed them in Iraq, and I oppose deadlines in Afghanistan." In Afghanistan, he said, "This will be a gradual process."

"The American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, made the same point while speaking to reporters in Kabul, the Afghan capital. He said he was "absolutely supportive of the timeline" laid out by Mr. Obama, but he also cautioned that the timeline was flexible and "is not an absolute."

Wow - that sure didn't take long.

Mark your calendars now: The national day of protest for peace will be March 20th, 2010.

---

by: iBlog @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 10:23:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Promises NOT kept (0.00 / 0)

DADT. DOMA. and thelist goes on.

And the response?

Don't Ask, Don't Give -> http://salsa.wiredforchange.co...

It's really simple. Until the promises are kept, no money. When the progressive ATM closes, then maybe those that want to tap it will understand that promises don't mean squat, actions do.

As for Obama the war President. Keith put it out there plainly enough. I have said it many times. The Democrats cut off the choices from the left and middle as "unelectable" and were left with the right and further right. Yes, they were left of the GOP, but both Clinton and Obama are no friend of the progressive movement.

When we needed FDR, we got JFK-Lite. That's what we voted for, and so we shouldn't be surprised that is what we ended up with.

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 15:00:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Puppet (0.00 / 0)

The World's Least Powerful Man

http://www.counterpunch.org/ro...

The military/security lobby has war and a domestic police state on its agenda, and a mere American president can't do anything about it.

President Obama can order the Guantanamo torture chamber closed and kidnapping and rendition and torture to be halted, but no one carries out the order.

Essentially, Obama is irrelevant.

President Obama can promise that he is going to bring the troops home, and the military lobby says, "No, you are going to send them to Afghanistan, and in the meantime start a war in Pakistan and maneuver Iran into a position that will provide an excuse for a war there, too. Wars are too profitable for us to let you stop them."

And the mere president has to say, "Yes, Sir!"

Obama can promise health care to 50 million uninsured Americans, but he can't override the veto of the war lobby and the insurance lobby. The war lobby says its war profits are more important than health care and that the country can't afford both the "war on terror" and "socialized medicine."

The insurance lobby says health care has to be provided by private health insurance; otherwise, we can't afford it.

"If those in charge of our society...can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves." ~~Howard Zinn

---

by: lakezoarian @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 12:01:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]