Obama/Afghanistan

Obama stated many, MANY times during his campaign that we need to focus on Afghanistan and that he would send more troops there if he was elected president.  He said it was a mistake to put our resources into Iraq when bin Laden most likely was hiding out in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border somewhere.

• Obama sends more troops to the middle east - icytoes
  • are we getting enough war in our diet? - mk
  • Iraq is a Middle Eastern country, Afghanistan NOT..sm - van
    • Obama on his decision to deploy additional 17,000 troops in Afghanistan..sm - van
    • Thank you van - and thank you for being civil - icytoes
      • Every one makes mistakes, it is enough - van
  • Please try to keep the facts straight...(sm) - Just the big bad
    • Don't waste your time, JBB - Reality Check
    • It's deceiving - icytoes
      • Obama/Afghanistan - they say will stay in America instead
      • And Africa is a Continent! nm - sm
        • What are you talking about - what does Africa have to do with any of this - icytoes
          • I think what 'sm' meant when she said... - van
      • Despite your attempt at spin - Afghan and Iraq are 2 different wars.....nm - sm
        • Actually, it was my understanding that both arenas represent the - SM
          • Afghanistan - war on Al Quaeda and Taliban; Iraqi FREEDOM - kill Saddam Hussein - sm
        • What spin - these are my thoughts - icytoes
          • Trying to lump the 2 wars into one and call Obama a liar is S-P-I-N - sm
            • Right, Obama said already during his campaign that - van
              • Correct - icytoes
            • Jeez - is JTBB the only civil person on this board - icytoes
              • No worries, icytoes. - Zville MT
                • Thanks Zville MT - icytoes
              • These are the 16 countries in the Middle East...s/m - van
              • Well..........your comments speak for themselves........ - sm
      • I think maybe the word you were looking for...(sm) - Just the big bad
        • You are correct - confusing - icytoes
          • And where do these "fresh" soldiers exist? Appalachia? - sm
            • Stop attacking me!!!!! - and JTBB answered my question - icytoes
              • No one is attacking you, they are correcting you. - Miss Take
                • No, they are attacking - icytoes
                  • and you know lots of people DID NOT vote for him because he's black - - Amanda Howard
                  • Apparently... - Miss Take
                  • LOL! and they vote! nm - talking to the wall
                    • Thanks - I needed a laugh (no message) - icytoes
          • From what I understand....(sm) - Just the big bad
            • Ha Ha Ha on the Maddow reporter - icytoes
      • It looks as though you weren't really paying attention... - sm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

the human cost of war and consequences of our foreign policies.  It is too bad that it took an election campaign to prompt the media to abandon previous censorship of these images.  If we can wage wars and perpetuate policies that bring this kind of unfathomable misery and human suffering down on village civilains(who up until now have carried the monolithic media moniker of "collateral damage") then I believe it is the media's job to report this side of the story and present these images every single time they occur.  

The Vietnam war was the first televised war.  The images that visited our living rooms nightly during the evening newcast compelled Americans with a conscience to oppose that war and call for its end.  Better late than never, I guess, but who knows what kind death and destruction could have been prevented on both sides of the conflict if we had access to these images all along?  

As a postscript observation, the images show us exactly why the tradition why diplomacy matters.  Some of us have been following this side of the story for years now.  For those voters, the war and the absence of EFFECTIVE international diplomacy and alliance building strategies are every bit as focal as the national issue of the economy.   

National Security Team Delivers Grim Appraisal of War in Afghanistan

Monday 09 February 2009

by: Craig Whitlock, The Washington Post  

Munich - President Obama's national security team gave a dire assessment Sunday of the war in Afghanistan, with one official calling it a challenge "much tougher than Iraq" and others hinting that it could take years to turn around.

    U.S. officials said more troops were urgently needed, both from America and its NATO allies, to counter the increasing strength of the Taliban and warlords opposed to the central government in Kabul. They also said new approaches were needed to untangle an inefficient and conflicting array of civilian-aid programs that have wasted billions of dollars.

    "NATO's future is on the line here," Richard C. Holbrooke, the State Department's special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told attendees at an international security conference here. "It's going to be a long, difficult struggle.... In my view, it's going to be much tougher than Iraq."

    Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of the U.S. Central Command, said the war in Afghanistan "has deteriorated markedly in the past two years" and warned of a "downward spiral of security."

    In addition to more combat troops, Petraeus called for "a surge in civilian capacity" to help rebuild villages, train local police forces, tackle corruption in the Afghan government and reduce the country's thriving opium trade. He also suggested that the odds of success were low, given that foreign military powers have historically met with defeat in Afghanistan.

    "Afghanistan has been known over the years as the graveyard of empires," he said. "We cannot take that history lightly."

    The White House is conducting a strategic review of the war in Afghanistan and says it will unveil the results before NATO holds a 60th-anniversary summit in early April.

    Obama administration officials have said they expect to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, bringing the total U.S. deployment there to about 66,000. U.S. allies have a combined 32,000 troops in Afghanistan operating under NATO command. NATO officials have pressed European members of the alliance to send more, but few countries have been willing.

    Germany, which has 3,500 troops in Afghanistan, the third most of any country, has questioned the need for more combat forces. Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said more attention should be paid to training Afghan forces and to reconstruction projects.

    "We won't win with military alone," he said at the conference. "There will be no development without security. But without development, we won't have security, either."

    The debate over troops has led to a split within NATO. Jaap DE Hoop Scheffer, NATO's secretary general, told conference attendees on Saturday that European members of the alliance needed to do more of the "heavy lifting" in Afghanistan.

    British Defense Secretary John Hutton openly disagreed with his German counterpart, saying the need for more combat troops was the highest priority in Afghanistan. Reconstruction efforts, he said, would fail if the Taliban remains strong.

    "We kid ourselves if we imagine that other contributions right now are of the same value, because they're not," he said. Britain has 8,900 troops in Afghanistan and has said it will probably send more.

    Afghan President Hamid Karzai said his country had made large strides since the U.S.-led military invasion in 2001. He said Afghanistan was home to a thriving free press, 17 universities, and schools for thousands of girls who had been barred by the Taliban from receiving an education. In 2001, he said, Afghanistan had no paved roads; now it has 2,500 miles of new highways.

    U.S. officials said one of the thorniest problems in Afghanistan is its flourishing drug trade, which accounts for an estimated 90 percent of the world's heroin supply. But Karzai, who faces reelection in August, dismissed portrayals of Afghanistan as being run by drug barons.

    "Yes, we produce poppies. Yes, we are insecure because of that," he said. "Are we a 'narco-state,' as we've been called the past few years? No, we are not."

    Karzai said the only way to bring stability to Afghanistan is to eventually negotiate a deal with the Taliban. He also blamed Afghanistan's slow recovery on a lack of coordination among donor countries.

    U.S. and European officials agreed that poor coordination is a major obstacle. "I've never seen anything remotely resembling the mess we've inherited," Holbrooke said.

    But some officials suggested the Afghan government was also responsible.

    Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush, cited a fumbled attempt by the United Nations last year to name Paddy Ashdown, a British diplomat, as the overseer of international aid projects in Afghanistan. Ashdown's appointment was torpedoed by Karzai, who saw it as an infringement on Afghanistan's sovereignty.

    Holbrooke replied that the Obama administration would revisit the idea of a development czar with Afghan officials. "The Paddy Ashdown fiasco - and there's no other word for it - really set back the international community."

    Last week, in an open letter to Holbrooke published in the Times of London, Ashdown expressed some sympathy for "poor President Karzai" and said NATO members were chasing different goals in Afghanistan, depending on where their forces operate.

    "The British think Afghanistan is Helmand, the Canadians think it's Kandahar, the Dutch think it's Uruzgan, the Germans think it's the Panjshir valley and the U.S. thinks it's chasing Osama bin Laden." He added, "Someone needs to bash heads together out there and if anyone can, you can."

    Also Sunday, Vice President Biden held talks in Munich with Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, a day after Biden said the White House wanted to "press the reset button" in its relations with the Kremlin. Ivanov praised Biden's speech, telling reporters that it was "very positive," and adding: "It is obvious the new U.S. administration has a very strong desire to change."

Indeed, in a February 17 article, the ANSA English Media Service reported (accessed from the Nexis database): "Since arriving in Italy on Saturday, Pelosi has visited the American air base at Aviano in northeast Italy and the American military cemetery in Florence and is due at the NATO Joint Forces Command in Naples Wednesday." Further, a February 19 press release issued by Pelosi's office stated: "Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Congressional delegation today were briefed by U.S. Admiral Mark Fitzgerald, Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Africa, and Commander of Allied Joint Force Command Naples. Admiral Fitzgerald and his NATO staff provided information on NATO activities in the Balkans, the ongoing training of Iraqi Security Forces, and operations against pirates off the coast of Somalia." The release further stated: "On Saturday, Speaker Pelosi and the Congressional delegation visited Aviano Air Base where the Speaker pinned the Bronze Star Medal on Technical Sergeant Phoebus Lazaridis for extraordinary service in Afghanistan. The delegation paid their respects to the more than 4,400 American World War II soldiers buried at the Florence American Cemetery on the outskirts of Florence on Sunday."

On February 21, Pelosi released a statement about her trip to Afghanistan, in which she said, "For the past two days, I have led an eight Member House delegation to Afghanistan to visit U.S. troops," during which the delegation "met with U.S. military leaders, and the U.S. Diplomatic team in Kabul to better assess the best course of action to further our national security interests in preparation for the completion of President Obama's strategic review of the Afghanistan policy" and "met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who is sending his own advisors to Washington as part of the review process."

Obama has shown great judgment in the people who surround him.  He picked a great VP choice, and his wife is impeccable as a helpmate and is a fantastic role model for the American children.   

I believe Obama has an awesome political future.  He sure is a bright light, and he would be someone I would seriously consider voting for.

Someone I like even better is Rep. Harold Ford from Tennessee.  Every time I hear this man speak, I like him more and more and more.

I think there are lots of good candidates out there who don't fit the profiles you outlined, which I also believe to be true, and I think we're well overdue in considering those candidates because, in my opinion, what we've been offered in the last several elections -- on BOTH sides -- has been pretty pitiful.  The "box" isn't working, and it's time to look outside of it.

If we get Obama or any of the other candidates we will get more of the same. War and taxes. Empire building. If you like that kind of stuff, vote for any of the candidates EXCEPT.......... RON PAUL. The only candidate for peace, limited government and minding our own business.

Haven't seen any posts here for awhile.  Very excited about the outcome of tonight's election.  I am so glad to see that people are not buying the "gimmicks" Hillary proposed.  Gas tax holiday?...give me a break!  Someone needed to ask her, "So what happens when the holiday is over", you charge back up the gas price! 

The big joke is that Bill Clinton raised the gas tax in his first year in office.  It was included in a package of tax increases that amounted to the biggest tax increase in history.  It was raised by 4.3 cents.  Not only did he raise the gas tax, but he wanted to raise it even higher.

So you should all get this straight...Hillary is "claiming" she would give drivers 3 whole months (wow - imagine that) 18 cent a gallon cut after her husband forced drivers to pay an extra 5 cents for 15 years.

Unfortunately there were some people who bought into her pandering (which by the way is another word for lying), but thank goodness enough people with an education and most important most of the with common sense could see right through her lies.

Way to go North Carolina - I'm so pleased.  And Indiana too.  It was a close race thank goodness.

Now she needs to step down.  Why?  Because its the right thing to do.  Do the numbers.  There is no way she can win and anyone who believes so needs to wake up.  What we need is for her to support Barack Obama (that is if she's telling the truth about the most important thing is nominating a democrat for president).  Somehow though I do not believe she has the best interest of the party or the american people in mind.  Her goal is to serve herself.  She needs to graciously bow out and put all her efforts into getting a democrat in the office.

P.S. - Note to the "ditto heads".  Maybe we should rename Limbaugh followers "dumbo heads".  Not only did your little plan fail Mr. Limbo, but it failed badly.  In a poll taken (and yes I know polls can be misleading), but not only did the republicans change parties to vote for a democrat but the majority of them voted for Obama.  Then on top of that over 75% of republicans that voted as democrats said that Obama could be McCain (or as I am hearing him being referred to as McBush), but only around 25% said they believed Hillary could win.  So not only does Hillary need to do the math, so does Mr. Limbo.

He's just a talking head, somebody's puppet, aint nothing without his teleprompter and written speeches...gimme a break!

help these people so they can continue to sit on their butts and do something while the rest of us bust our humps.  No thank you! 

With RNC behind us now, dems are faced with the daunting challenge of making the 2008 election a referendum on issues, not a personality contest.  Here are 2 links that got thrown under the bash bus. 

http://www.alternet.org/election08/97198/top_ten_most_disturbing_facts_and_impressions_of_sarah_palin/

http://www.alternet.org/election08/97350/8_more_shocking_revelations_about_sarah_palin/?page=3

Though the title of these articles may lead one to conclude it is more about Palin bashing, there is a gold mine of pertinent information to be found there.  Embedded within the articles are more links that are overwhelming on first inspection, but well worth the time it takes to review them.  Laid out there between the lines is a structured blueprint for facing the upcoming 60 days with effective campaign strategy. 

There is another post that also got buried in the mud which will be brought back up to the top momentarily on issues.  If it get buries again, it will be brought back up to the top again.  The bashes it may inspire will be ignored.  The issues will continue to get the focus. 

There is another battleground in this election aside from the issues push.  It is the one fought on the field of values and vision; specifically, the Obama vision versus the McCain/Palin vision of what kind of America they/we see in our futures and what sort of change each candidate promises to deliver.  The link below is an article that addresses this subject.  It is a self-effacing piece I believe dems should take to heart when considering how to frame their upcoming campaign tactics.  Here's that link.  

http://www.alternet.org/election08/97193/the_palin_choice%3A_the_reality_of_voters%27_minds/

The introduction to this post expresses a basic premise from which I will be operating.  I will not be diminishing the power of Obama's message by indulging in petty squabbles, dead-end distractions, one-upmanship and a race to get the last word.  There is important work here, people, and we best rolls up our sleeves and get started. 

Countdown Monday night.  Can't wait.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_craftiness.html

under your bed?  I read the black arms and then the rest and can only see the reason to post this on a politics board is . . .

a beard, honey.  Once again, you are mixing up Obama and Osama.  Not r-e-a-l bright.