Afghanistan: Oregon delegation reacts
Kari Chisholm
Yesterday, President Obama detailed his plan for troop increases for Afghanistan. The Oregonian's Charlie Pope pulled together the responses from Oregon's congressional delegation. Here's some excerpts:
Sen. Ron Wyden – D
“I am skeptical that committing tens of thousands of additional men and women -- and billions of additional tax dollars -- to Afghanistan will help meet the President's stated goals. ... I will reserve final judgment on the troop surge until after the Senate Intelligence Committee receives its classified briefing from the Obama Administration. As of tonight, my strong preference is to keep those troops and billions of dollars right here at home to help re-build America.”
Sen. Jeff Merkley – D
“...I’m not convinced the case has been made to add more than 30,000 new troops. Significant questions remain about our strategic goals in Afghanistan and the human and financial costs involved in achieving them. ... How will our strategy overcome Afghanistan’s history of decentralized power exercised by regional warlords, its systemic corruption, the insurgents’ ability to use the presence of a foreign force as a rallying point, the geography and topography of the country, and the Taliban’s easy access to explosives and funding? ..."
Rep. Greg Walden - R
“We must ensure our troops have the resources and support they need to succeed in denying safe haven to al-Qaeda. Now the President must rally the American people and Congress behind his decision. I am pleased that Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, General McChrystal, and our top diplomats will testify in front of Congress so we can hear from our country’s top military officials regarding the President’s plan and if they think it is sufficient for us to succeed in Afghanistan.”
Rep. Kurt Schrader – D
“I appreciate President Obama’s careful consideration as he came to this decision and his candor with the American people this evening. However, I have serious concerns about engaging in a military strategy that includes an increase of 30,000 additional troops deployed to Afghanistan. ... [W]e should focus our efforts on pursuing al-Qaida instead of increasing our troop levels in Afghanistan.”
Rep. Peter DeFazio – D
"I am opposed to an escalation of troops in Afghanistan. Sending 34,000 more troops into Afghanistan might have worked in 2002 or 2003, but after 5 years of neglect under the Bush Administration, more troops in the Pashtun dominated south will not achieve the desired results. ..."
Rep. David Wu – D
“President Obama and his administration followed a wise course in carefully and thoughtfully making this crucial strategy decision. No one wants to be fighting a war in Afghanistan, but the president’s new approach gives us the best opportunity to finish the job in a way that’s consistent with our national security interests.”
Rep. Earl Blumenauer – D
“... I agree with everything President Obama has done to assess our role in Afghanistan, but I am unable to embrace his conclusion. It is unclear that 30,000 more troops will resolve the conflict, or at least allow us to leave in eighteen months. It may actually weaken our ability to deal with larger security and economic threats at home and abroad - from terrorist recruiting and nuclear weapons to unemployment and our budget deficit. ..."
Discuss.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Dec 2, '09
Moderate-Dem commentator Bill Press was moved to say that the speech could've been delivered by George W. Bush or Rudy Giuliani.
Throwing out the 9/11 reference when the acts were not even allegedly committed by Afghans or planned in Afghanistan.
But Obama will get enough GOP support and some Dem support to go ahead with this. And he'll be re-elected in 2012, again with substantial GOP support.
"Hope and Change"?
1:08 p.m.
Dec 2, '09
Throwing out the 9/11 reference when the acts were not even allegedly committed by Afghans or planned in Afghanistan.
Wait. I'm fairly damn skeptical of this too, but Al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan on 9/11. As far as we know, that's where Bin Laden's been this whole time.
Dec 2, '09
The next president will also use the events of 9/11 to justify our continued involement in Afghanistan. It won't make any more sense in 3 years than it did last night.
1:18 p.m.
Dec 2, '09
As David Sirota remarked, "I remember the good ol' days - just a few years ago - when the Nobel prize was given to those pushing for end of wars in Afghanistan, rather than those escalating them excerpts from previous Nobel winners."
1:18 p.m.
Dec 2, '09
As far as we know, that's where Bin Laden's been this whole time.
Huh? What whole time? On 9/11, yes, but every report I've seen (most recently the investigation by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released just last week) says that Bush & crew allowed him to escape from Tora Bora into Pakistan in December of 2001, and that Al Qaeda's leadership has been operating out of Pakistan's tribal areas ever since.
Dec 2, '09
I appreciate where those who are lukewarm at best at sending more troops to Afghanistan, but just saying I don't like it and lets bring them home should require those who hold that view to say loudly that they will accept leaving Afghanistan and whatever the consequences that leaving will have. It's easy to criticize. Until someone comes up with a better solution, I'm with Obama.
1:20 p.m.
Dec 2, '09
Interpreting those statements--and allowing for later weaselling--it would seem like Obama's got Walden and Wu, but everyone else is on the side of angels. David Wu, Oregon's Democratic warhawk! :)
1:25 p.m.
Dec 2, '09
Kari - Osama bin Laden is the Emmanuel Goldstein that the Bush and Obama administrations have needed in order to justify our asinine and economically crippling military budget (more than half of all global military spending). If he weren't available, someone else would take his place as the target of our daily "Two Minute Hate" (brought to you by Fox News, CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS).
Dec 2, '09
How does the average Afghani feel about this "surge"? The terrorists will simply relocate to another safe haven & some undoubtedly will relocate back to Iraq while our troops chase their tails. How many boots on the ground are needed to battle the terrorists wherever they regroup? Good intel and pinpoint strikes focussed on terrorist enclaves seems the more prudent option. Rangers, Seals and Green Beret along with the CIA could be the answer and that response team would be sustainable. My disappointment in this conventional decision is palpable. Bring those PTSD afflicted vets home where they belong.
Dec 2, '09
Not Giuliani. The speech didn't include the magic arbitrary phrases that must be a part of any speech to gain Guiliani's approval. I believe it's: "war against islamo-fascism terrorist boogeymen" ... or something.
Dec 2, '09
It is ugly but wouldn't there be a preference for Afgans to kill Afgans instead of our machines, women and men killing them? They are not going to be any more of a nation for our having been there. We didn't go there with good intentions. Don't send machines to do the work of policemen and social workers. Marines don't do that and should not be asked to. Tribal loyalties can't be destroyed by bombs. They are strenthened by the killing of family members.
1:40 p.m.
Dec 2, '09
Until someone comes up with a better solution, I'm with Obama.
Yes, let's continue to prop up a corrupt and illegitimate government whose leader is basically the glorified Mayor of Kabul.
Here's a thought: Instead of spending $12 - $17 billion per month occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, how about we invest that money into building a world class transportation and communication infrastructure here in the United States -- or God forbid -- use some of that money to pay down the national debt.
Let's put this into a proper context: 1 month of expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan is more than the 10-year cost of the health care bill currently being debated in the US Senate, and every penny we are spending on those wars increases our national debt.
Dec 2, '09
As a good Democrat, I blame Nader and the zionists.
Hope - change - 9/11 - Pakistan - Afghanistan - Taliban - hope - change - Have I hypnotized you yet?
Dec 2, '09
Welcome to 1965. Time to dust off some old slogans, such as, "Hey, Hey BHO, kill more kids for drug/oil dough!
Dec 2, '09
I wonder what the pay check for a Taliban member who rejects Al-Qaeda looks like? I've always rejected Al- qaeda and have had to pay and expect to pay till death for this misadenture.
2:31 p.m.
Dec 2, '09
Emmit Goldman: As a good Democrat, I blame Nader and the zionists.
Nader and the Zionists?
As every good Naderite knows, the jews are the ultimate source of all evil in the Middle East, and no Arab or Muslim extremist has ever done anything ever to cause Israelis to be concerned about their safety. Why, if only Israel would hand its sovereignty over to the tender mercies of Hamas, all would be completely right in the world, eternal peace would be the result, and unicorns would return to the world.
This is because, like Neocons, Naderites know that the world is divided between "Us" (who are perfect and good) and "Them" (who are totally, irredeemably evil). So if we could just rid the world of "Them" (most especially, including the traitorous ones who pretend to be "Us"), everything would be peachy and keen forever.
Of course, it's hard to rid the world of people you don't like, and Naderites don't like sending off other people's children to fight and die against the "Them" like Neocons do. So they do the next best thing: flame away at people USING ALL CAPS in forum websites.
That'll work. Any day now.
Dec 2, '09
Disappointed but not suprised that we're staying and increasing forces in Aghanistan. But I don't believe that the majority of Afghan citizens want us there, so we will never reach our objectives. Our military and goals are at odds with the long tribal culture there. More blood and money spent with no end in sight (and no, don't start with July 2011---Obama left lots of wiggle room and we won't be pulling out then unless we admit defeat). It's a shame, really. But not a suprise.
Dec 2, '09
From the speech:
"For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination."
"We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might."
What BS.
Look for the VFP flags and banner at the federal bldg, that will be me.
WAR IS THE ENEMY
Dec 2, '09
Who is running against Wu in the next primary? TIA.
Dec 2, '09
To be fair, Obama was just as wrong on Afghanistan during the 2008 primaries as he was last night. It seems impossible for a US president to resist the powers that promote imperialism, military hegemony, and the spending of a huge portion of the federal budget on weapons and their use.
This nation is controlled by selfish war criminals with the tacit approval of an ignorant, confused and complacent citizenry.
3:30 p.m.
Dec 2, '09
Isn’t it depressing that he’s doing exactly what he said he’d do during his presidential campaign? I hate when they do that.
I sure got it that he was all about cutting the baby in half back when he was still running for office........and in fact, what he’s proposing is exactly what should have been done in 2002. Even though it wasn't all in the speech, there are a lot of moving parts. Check out Dan Rather’s interview with Rachel last week.
The idea of putting NGO personnel, that are over there trying to help civilians, with troops going into villages is the way it should have been done from the start. Also, as Christiane Amanpour pointed out on CNN last night, just like in Iraq, you’ve got whole tribes that have been left out in the cold who will now be brought into access the gravy train. A central part of the effort will be to build up from the local level rather than down from the top.
<hr/>Still a long shot, but at least we got a beginning date for draw down if not a commitment on troop levels at the end. Don’t know if it’ll work or not. Wouldn’t bet on it.
Dec 2, '09
It seems impossible for a US president to resist the powers that promote imperialism, military hegemony, and the spending of a huge portion of the federal budget on weapons and their use.
OK. Guess this blog is still at the "Santa Claus does it" stage. If you believe a President sits up there, tabula rasa, and says, "now what will my Afghanistan policy be...", well, you don't have a world view that will lead to anything but more of the same.
"He's doing what he promised". I don't remembering him saying, "I think it might be smart to continue renditions, with oversight". And I'm sure that if he had been asked, "if criminal courts find that renditions are a violation of law, and hand down convictions, will you honor the judgment of the world community", he would have said, "no, we'll make what we think is the best decision, and right now it's looking like the previous Administration has given us a useful tool".
Their reactions are pretty predictable. Wu is classic. Pro drug war, and that is a pretty good predictor of where he'll come down on everything else. The kind of pol that has to look at a voting map of his district before he decides which party he is. That's the only reason he's a Dem, imho.
Dec 2, '09
Where's the HOPE and CHANGE I voted for??
Dec 2, '09
With a literacy rate below ten percent it is doubtful that many folks in Afghanistan read The Nation or keep up with what corporation will benefit if the TAPI natural gas pipeline is built. That would be General Electric and the country generating electricity from that gas is India.
It is not too late to acknowledge the criminal corruption that the United States is carrying out. At least a half dozen of Kabul's Mayor, Karzai, are directly invovlved with heroin production and distribution. The CIA is in a clandestine partnership with Blackwater in Pakistan where more than four million people have been displaced so far this year by the Drone attacks. By the way, the most employees in The Gorge, seven hundred, work for Insitsu, the subsidiary of Boeing. What is the connection? Duh.
Literacy is the excuse for tribal folks in Afghanistan. What excuse is there not to know about Bora Bora. None.
Dec 2, '09
I am disappointed as well that President Obama is going to send more troops to Afghanistan. There is no 'winning' to be done there, only dying. Fighting foreign invaders to the death is the Afghan national sport. We are just the latest interlopers.
I guess he's just trying to prove that he could get some soldiers killed needlessly just like Bush did.
I don't suppose this will stop any of the crazy talk about he's a Kenyan/Socialist/communist/death panel supporting/gun taking/fascist/undercover- Muslim/old white people killing/ ACORN election stealing/Manchurian Candidate President
Just remember, it's bad but it's still better than having President McCain with Vice President Palin at the helm.
4:21 p.m.
Dec 2, '09
"Isn’t it depressing that he’s doing exactly what he said he’d do during his presidential campaign? I hate when they do that."
It may not be a betrayal or particularly surprising--but it's definitely depressing. At the time you might have heard me say, "Well, I disagree with him on that, but we can fight that battle when it comes if he's elected; right now he's the best candidate and needs to be elected."
And here we are. Voting for McCain sure wouldn't have made this go away, and simply having forewarning does not subtract your right to critique Obama on this issue.
Dec 2, '09
Just remember, it's bad but it's still better than having President McCain with Vice President Palin at the helm.
Which is why the Dems must be behind conservative talk radio. It is the only compelling reason they have when they say "Vote Dem".
Posted by: N.Wigger | Dec 2, 2009 4:16:22 PM
Where's the HOPE and CHANGE I voted for??
Pat says you got it. Now go away and be happy. This is for Dem hacks and Rep trolls. After Bill and Z directly answer his "cite me an example of Libertarian economics", to be met with silence, and this posting, it's obvious that progressives have lost one of their best to the Party.
I can't wait to see how this is spun in 2012, when Dems come out with "Jackass II".
4:58 p.m.
Dec 2, '09
After Bill and Z directly answer his "cite me an example of Libertarian economics"
I don't know how "Bill" answered my challenge, but "Z" came up with a couple of spans of a couple of years in US history. That isn't what I challenged them to provide.
Where, in world history, is the example of a nation/state that was run by economically "libertarian" principles as defined by the person answering the challenge? That gives 'em a lot of room to move.
I didn't see a response to that. Did you? If so, please direct me to it.
<hr/>As to the current comment on this thread. I'm pointing out (as TJ seems to understand) that Obama gave us advanced notice of his attitude regarding Afghanistan/Pakistan.
In my earlier comment I didn't endorse Obama's or any other POV, just offered an explanation, and said that it's long odds for success in staying there, even if you (finally) plan to do it correctly.......
Dec 2, '09
As a good Democrat, I blame Nader and the zionists.
As a good Naderite, I blame Ziocrats and demonists.
The fucked up Afghanistan surge
List of things likely to go wrong
The Afghan government: an oxymoron
Dec 2, '09
"But Obama will get enough GOP support and some Dem support to go ahead with this. And he'll be re-elected in 2012, again with substantial GOP support."
Obama might be doing the bidding of the war machine, but the GOP will dump him as soon as he has served his purpose. Given the tribal loyalties of Democrats and others with short memories, Obama could make it for a second term; although, I wouldn't bet on it.
"... Al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan on 9/11. As far as we know, that's where Bin Laden's been this whole time."
al Qaida was in Afghanistan on and prior to 9/11, but according to authorities I have read the Taliban leaders were not aware of his plans for that fateful day and were offended by this action that they considered an abuse of their hospitality. The Taliban were prohibited by tribal custom from turning bin Laden and his gang over to the U.S. without proof of their guilt, a project that was beyond the patience of the Bush Administration. "Intelligence" operatives appear to have concluded Obama took a hike over the border to Pakistan after Tora Bora.
"As every good Naderite knows, the jews are the ultimate source of all evil in the Middle East, and no Arab or Muslim extremist has ever done anything ever to cause Israelis to be concerned about their safety."
From a letter by Ralph Nader to Abraham Foxman:
"You fail to understand that your studied refusal to reflect the condemnations of Israeli military action and mayhem against civilians, by the great Israeli human rights organization B't selem and the major international human rights organizations, contributes to the stereotypic bigotry against Palestinian Arabs and the violent Gulag that imprisons them in the West Bank and Gaza."
"... the great Israeli human rights organization B't selem ..." doesn't seem to qualify as evidence of hating Jews.
Opponents of Israel's actions in Palestine and Lebanon are not necessarily anti-Jews. Most are, however, opposed to the actions of Israel's right-wing government. Opponents include a number of human rights groups and such courageous Israelis as Uri Avnery, Gideon Levy and Amira Hass. Richard Goldstone, whose commission wrote a report condemning war crimes committed by Israeli and Hamas forces in Palestine during Operation Cast Lead is Jewish and a Zionist.
Dec 2, '09
Here's my suggestion for how to get the hell out of Afghanistan: turn our foreign policy over to Harry Reid. He'll have to pretend (as with health care reform legislation) that he needs all 60 Democrats on board before he can do anything.
I guess we know now how the American Empire finally ends: by bankruptcy. Just like the British Empire. But just like the British at the end of the Second World War, we'll flail around for 15 or 20 years fighting counter-insurgencies.
Dec 2, '09
I read his speech because I could not bear to him speak it. I have no doubt that Obama is a very bright man but his speech was insulting to all of us. I realize that he said in his campaign that he would lead a limited but finely targeted campaign in Afghanistan. But I had my hopes. Here lately, however, he has let me know that the progressive party dreams are over. He did not stand up for a strong public option. He did not stand up for women's reproductive rights and now he is leading us into a war which is wrong in every way a war can be wrong. It gobbles up any chance we have for constructive good in the future including climate change, including education, including infrastructure, etc... It robs us of chances for job creation and just sends more borrowed money down the rat hole. I do not think that any of our own delegation will withhold money for this ruinous escapade so it really doesn't matter what they say. If we had never had hope held out, this would not be so bitter. If he had not been so likeable, we would not wish so fervently that he could act as well as he can talk. But he can't and we're stuck.
Dec 2, '09
Did he say he would send another 50,000 soldiers into the breach? I would never have voted for that. I have had it with being played.
Dec 2, '09
Wow, what an astonishing display of ignorance! Do any of you people actually know an Afghan? For those of you opposing the expansion because we should focus on domestic issues, have you ever read about the lead up to World War II? Unlike the Iraqis, the Afghans actually want us there. Those that support the Taliban do so for the same reason they supported the Taliban the first time around - they're bringing stability to areas that no one else is. If we provide that security temporarily, until the Afghan government can get it together, they will be able to build their own society. That's the whole point of having a deadline.
On that note, where's the sense of honor? We invaded this country and occupied it. We owe the Afghan people a moral debt to leave their country better than we found it. We got distracted with Iraq, but that doesn't absolve us of our responsibilities to them. It's not a boundless responsibility, but we haven't met our obligations yet.
Dec 2, '09
I was in vietnam recently. My guide asked me why my goverment was spying on me. He also told me that those folks are afraid that we would return.
Dec 2, '09
Democrats in Washington D.C. jump from one side of the fence to the other regarding troop surges in recent conflicts. In Iraq, circa 2003-2005 the rallying cry from the D.C. Dems was NOT ENOUGH TROOPS to do the job! One of John Kerry's main talking points throughout his campaign and during the Bush debates.
From 2005-2008 the D.C. Dem call was to not fund the troops, let's bring the troops home. No to the Iraqi surge. It won't work. Bring the troops home was a MAJOR THEME of the D.C. Dems congressional surge commanded by Dr. Howard Dean and led to control of congress. Bush then decided to send more troops to Iraq. Obama was against it. It wasn't going to work in Iraq. But the 2007 Iraqi surge did work. Fatalities and casualties decreased dramatically.
When the D.C. Dems realized the 2007 Iraqi surge was working, the talking point for 2008 became Bush took his eye off the ball regarding Afghanistan. The D.C. Dems (including Obama) began to call for a troop surge in Afghanistan. The Anti-War faction became rather subdued and silent over this.
Obama's 2010 surge will be successful. The Taliban will be contained. The Pakistan border will be better guarded.
There is a number of mentions from our reps in D.C. that they have "concern" about Obama's surge. The real concern should be how they are for and against surges in conflicts, as politically convenient.
Dec 2, '09
The majority of Americans are opposed to this war. Obama is showing once again who he works for. Not the American people, but the narrow, privileged elite who rule this country and profit off of depression and war.
Empty rhetoric? A little too accurate for that, methinks. Who supports Obama's plan? Newt Gingrich and Ol' Turd Blossom himself. Congrats to Blue Oregon bloggers for providing pseudo-populist cover for the War Criminal in Chief.
Dec 2, '09
Any body wants to pretend that they know more american history than I do, I say "bring em on". That is what the president said the day my nephew was killed in Iraq. We are off the cliff here.
Dec 2, '09
Matt Taibbi's latest article, "Obama's Big Sell-Out" suggests that President Obama replaced his progressive economic team with the same-old Washington/Wall Street types almost immediately after the election. That takes away from the idea that he got into office and was forced to reassess what he believed or was ordered to do something else. It suggests that progressive forces were used to get him in power in a dishonest way - something I certainly believe. I mean when they said Obama was related to Cheney I didn't know they shared so many political beliefs. So far he's President Bush the Third. The picture that's emerging of Obama is of a pragmatic, unprincipled person. Hope and change was a marketing tool. Plus, he seems to have a weird need to win over his adversaries. This Afghanistan plan was praised by Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich. Did you ever imagine that was going to happen?
There's way too much of this consensus building at all costs. We're staying for the hawks, we're leaving for the 2012 election. It's all very shallow and sad.
and not all the lyrics apply but these sure do:
Yes I think you know it's true Situations where it's easy to look down on you
You do what you do You say what you say You try to be everything to everyone You know all the right people You play all the right games You always try to be everything to everyone"
Dec 3, '09
A year ago I wondered aloud how things would fare at BO being in power, as that had never happened since it started. Perhaps progressives are about at the point that Reps were when this blog started (in terms of support for the President's policies).
Interesting too, that one prominent blogger in these virtual pages replied, about the time the following was posted, saying, "Lack of Dem consensus isn't about not having the votes. It's about the Dem leadership in Congress. That will not change, even if they had a majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate". And everyone had a good 'ol laugh.
One has to wonder how long it will be before the shoe is completely on the other foot. To whit:
Posted by: Deborah Barnes | Jul 20, 2007 2:25:18 PM dddave,
I am disappointed the Democrats in Congress have not been able to come to a consensus and find a way to end this pain for our Country. I cannot speak for them and can only ask them to do what is right.
As for electing "my guy" as President...I did. The Supreme Court took my right away when I voted years ago. I am actually shocked whenever I see a Bush bumper sticker anymore. I just don't see why someone would want to advertise their support for that man.
Yup. Without right wing radio to create issues where Dems feel comfortable leading, there could well be populist sentiment to throw all the bums out. Fortunately, we have such polarized positions, with so few progressive options, that it comes down to, "can't vote for them. Guess it's the Dems again".
10:18 a.m.
Dec 3, '09
For those of you opposing the expansion because we should focus on domestic issues, have you ever read about the lead up to World War II?
What is happening right now in Afghanistan has zero resemblance to any of the preconditions that gave rise to World War II. It bears a striking resemblance, however, to Soviet efforts in the late 1970's and early 1980's that contributed to that nation's economic collapse.
Most of the cost of the $12 trillion we are going to spend on the bailouts for the financial, housing, and automobile industries and the $3 trillion we are expected to spend in Iraq and Afghanistan on top of the $500 billion per annum defense budget is going onto a credit card that our kids are going to have to pay off. Meanwhile, we are not leaving them the tools -- in terms of education, infrastructure, and opportunity that they will need to pay off that debt.
Our economy is shrinking. Income and employment are down. The level of military spending that our government is currently engaged in is simply not sustainable.
Dec 3, '09
I have visited country and have friends who have worked there. Whatever we do needs to be communicated in culturally relevant language to the many Afghan subcultures. Meanwhile, Pakistan is the real issue and I trust this administration to do a better job of defusing it than has been done in the past.
There are plenty of public works in Afghanistan to be undertaken with local labor, putting sewers in Kabul would be a good start.
Dec 3, '09
Tomgram: Victory at Last! Monty Python in Afghanistan
Dec 3, '09
Kari Chisolm: I meant when I said the operation was not planned in Afghanistan is that it was planned in Hamburg, Germany, in an apartment in the poor section of that city. Of course bin Laden and al-Zawahiri and others were in Afghanistan, but we really don't know to what extent they were involved in the operation.
Yesterday before a Senate committee Robert Gates tesified that if the figureheads of al-Qaeda were killed then that would be a demoralizing blow to the organization. So, I guess 9/11 in that way could be extrapolated to use as reason for the escalated action.
Not sure a whole bunch of people who are labeled "Taliban" should be militarily engaged in order to kill those few figures.
Dec 3, '09
Bill Bodden: My guess is that 2012 will turn out like '96: enough of the right-wing will figure out that Obama is hardly a leftist or socialist, that he's actually some kind of Christian who opposes gay marriage and that he will carry on with the wars. And their own party is too riven by religious zealotry to win it against a fairly conservative incumbent.
I could be wrong.
Dec 3, '09
Sal,
Obama's speech did not change my opposition to the occupation of either Iraq or Afghanistan. But you are mistaken: Osama bin Laden is no mere "Emmanuel Goldstein," Orwell's generic focus of propaganda hatred in the novel "1984." To those whose lives were endangered up close to the World Trade Center or the Pentagon on 9/11, or whose loved ones were endangered or lost, bin Laden is real: a cold-blooded killer who should have been apprehended or killed back at Tora Bora. (He is of course related to the Saudi royal family, and maybe someday we'll learn more about why and how the search for him was called off.)
Bin Laden remains the most successful terrorist in history, having led US leadership elites into the near self-destruction of the country. And even if he is ever apprehended or even if he is already dead, he remains a martyr to millions of people worldwide. We can't hope to dismiss him from history.
Dec 3, '09
Re: "Just remember, it's bad but it's still better than having President McCain with Vice President Palin at the helm."
Yes. Obama's less evil than McCain, and now you have an actual measurement of precisely how much less evil:
McCain would no doubt have approved all 40,000 of the recommended cannon fodder, so Obama's 30,000 is exactly 75%. Therefore, Obama is three quarters as evil as McCain, and he should be re-elected.
Dec 3, '09
Re: "Bin Laden remains the most successful terrorist in history..."
Bid Laden is a terrorist piker in comparison to the U.S. presidents who have presided over the deaths of millions. American exceptionalism is clouding your mind.
Dec 3, '09
Whoops! Seems like my math was wrong after all, and I apologize for it. As Tom Engelhardt reports:
...the President granted Secretary of Defense Robert Gates the right to “increase the number by 10 percent, or 3,000 troops, without additional White House approval or announcement”...In addition, an unnamed “senior military official” claimed “that the final number could go as high as 35,000 to allow for additional support personnel such as engineers, medevac units and route-clearance teams, which comb roads for bombs.” So now, in surge math, we’re at 35,000 U.S. troops. Add in the expected NATO contribution of about 5,000 extra troops and -- voilà -- you have 40,000 on the button.
So there's still something to be said for attempts to precisely measure the difference between levels of evil of the two evil parties, but we must conclude that, on this measurement, Obama and McCain are precisely equally evil (and equally insane).
Dec 3, '09
Backbeat,
David Robinson is the candidate running against Wu in the primary. You can check him out at davidrobinson2010 dot com. He is a military guy - I am waiting to hear what he has to say about the war. I wonder if BlueOregon will post something from him on this issue. I hope so, I really like what Robinson has to say so far.
Z
Dec 3, '09
Thx Zo!
Dec 3, '09
It's also pretty awesome that none of these elected officials have a bleeding word to say about how this will effect the people getting bombs dropped on their head. It's all this nationalist pap about how this "isn't right for America" or whatever.
I seriously cannot be the only one who does not identify his interests with a narrow financial elite.
Dec 4, '09
Next up: The scene where the politicians go along with it even though they are deeply, deeply concerned that it's a bad plan. Why? Because they want to make sure the troops have everything they need.
Dec 4, '09
Best summary I've seen of the situation in Afghanistan:
An Open Letter to President Obama By William R. Polk (really knows his stuff)
Ties all the 'stuff' together .... the history, Pakistan, India, and Kashmir.
I hardly ever hear 'experts' discuss Kashmir.
Nir Rosen (journalist) says that two American policies alone (Palestine and Kashmir) account for most of the recruiting horsepower of al Qeda ..... changing them could cut al Qeda off at the knee caps.
Nir Rosen interview on Democracy Now.
Dec 4, '09
Here's the link for the Nir Rosen interview referenced in previous post
http://i4.democracynow.org/2009/12/2/nir_rosen_we_managed_to_make
10:07 p.m.
Dec 5, '09
Dear Ricky,
<h2>Stop putting that white stuff up your nose. It only funds the bad people. Remember what Nancy said, "Just say no".</h2>