Obama is taking our money... you would be

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

Obama: �Taking the fight� to Afghanistan

New president will have his hands full with war that is eclipsing conflict in Iraq

A worsening war in Afghanistan � and a growing Taliban and al-Qaida insurgency in the tribal areas of nuclear-armed neighboring Pakistan � will loom large on the agenda for President-elect Barack Obama during the next four years.

On the campaign trail, Obama argued that the war in Iraq has drained troops and resources from the battlefield in Afghanistan, causing the situation there to deteriorate. He has described Afghanistan as "the war we need to win," and he has pledged to send at least two more brigades of U.S. troops to reinforce the 70,000 U.S. and NATO forces already serving in the country.

Obama has also pledged to press NATO allies to contribute more forces, and he has said he will step up training for the Afghan army and police, as well as increase non-military aid to Afghanistan by $1 billion.

"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won," Obama vowed, outlining his plans in an Aug. 1, 2007, speech at the Wilson Center in Washington, D.C. "(But) the first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Obama has said he will not "tolerate a terrorist sanctuary" in Pakistan, and he has suggested that he will send U.S. forces on cross-border raids to eliminate high-value terrorists if the Pakistani government cannot or will not take action.

But making campaign promises is one thing. Turning them into realities on the ground is another.

Afghanistan is quickly eclipsing Iraq as the deadlier of America�s two wars. Since May, U.S. casualty figures in Afghanistan have virtually matched those in Iraq on a monthly basis, and for the past two months, more U.S. troops have died in Afghanistan than in Iraq.

At least 151 U.S. troops have died in Afghanistan so far this year, making 2008 the deadliest for U.S. forces since the war began seven years ago, according to icasualties.org. Another 104 soldiers from other countries also have died, according to the Web site. Insurgent attacks and the numbers of civilians killed in the war are also at an all-time high.

At least 626 U.S. soldiers have died in Afghanistan since the war began in 2001.

More troops urged

There are currently about 33,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but commanders have been clamoring for more forces. U.S. Gen. David McKiernan, the commander of NATO-led troops, has said that at least 10,000 more soldiers are needed in the country, along with more helicopters, intelligence teams and logistics support.

But with 150,000 U.S. servicemembers committed to Iraq, a significant drawdown is going to have to occur there first, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned last June. And analysts caution that sending more troops to Afghanistan is not likely to have the same effect as it did in Iraq, where the so-called troop "surge" last year played a significant role in reducing violence.

"My sense is that we�re not going to troop-surge our way out of Afghanistan," said Stephen Biddle, a former Army War College professor and now a senior fellow on defense policy at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C. "The problem is that the troop ratio needs are too much. Conventional wisdom says that there are not enough feasible reinforcements that can be sent to Afghanistan, even if you draw down fully from Iraq."

In addition to sending at least another two combat brigades to Afghanistan, Obama has said he will press other NATO countries to send more troops and that he would push for those countries that have restrictions on sending troops into combat to lift them.

But there now appears to be little appetite within NATO for either.

Britain, which has 8,000 soldiers operating mostly in Helmand province in southern Afghanistan, has said it doesn�t plan to send any reinforcements, even as it pulls its remaining forces out of Iraq. Britain has lost more than 121 soldiers in Afghanistan, the second-highest total after the United States.

Canada, which has 2,500 soldiers operating in neighboring Kandahar province, plans to pull its troops out of the province by the end of 2011. Canada has lost 97 troops so far, the third-highest total of the war.

France has about 2,600 soldiers serving in Afghanistan, and its parliament voted in September to send another 100 troops, along with more helicopters, unmanned aircraft, mortars and intelligence gathering equipment. But according to press reports from the country, polls indicate that opposition to the Afghan mission is growing. France has lost at least 24 soldiers in Afghanistan since 2002.

Of the other major NATO powers, Germany has about 3,000 soldiers operating in Afghanistan, but its troops are limited to operating north of Kabul, mostly away from combat, and Berlin has repeatedly resisted pressure from the United States and Britain to send troops south into the fighting. Germany has lost about 28 soldiers in Afghanistan, and the mission remains deeply unpopular among Germans.

"It�s probably not going to happen, in terms of caveats or numbers," said Michael E. O�Hanlon, who specializes in U.S. national security policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., speaking of a larger NATO commitment.

The Pakistan problem

In addition to dealing with the war in Afghanistan, Obama is also going to have to confront a growing Taliban and al-Qaida insurgency in Pakistan�s tribal areas, which some analysts see a bigger and more important threat.

"Dealing with Pakistan, where America�s mortal foe al-Qaida is nestled alongside the Taliban, is clearly the most pressing problem we face," Bing West, a retired Marine and former assistant secretary of defense under President Reagan, wrote last week in The National Interest, a foreign policy journal.

In one of his most provocative stances of the campaign, Obama suggested that he would send U.S. combat troops into Pakistan to take out terrorist targets.

"If the United States has al-Qaida, bin Laden, (or) top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out," Obama said, during the first presidential debate at the University of Mississippi on Sept. 26.

But the one known cross-border raid that U.S. forces conducted into Pakistan on Sept. 3 elicited strong condemnation from the Pakistani government, which threatened to open fire on any more U.S. troops who cross the border.

Pakistan has also demanded that CIA missile attacks on its territory be stopped. Missile attacks by unmanned drones operated by the CIA have gone up dramatically in recent months, as U.S. officials have complained that the Pakistani military has not done enough to go after Taliban and al-Qaida sanctuaries in the tribal areas.

The ISI, Pakistan�s powerful intelligence agency, has long-standing ties to the Taliban and other militant groups that date back to the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, and the agency has funded Kashmiri militant groups in its decades-long struggle against India. Pakistan claims those ties have been severed, but many Western officials remain skeptical.

While more attention to Pakistan is generally welcomed among analysts, some warn that taking too much aggressive action in the country could actually destabilize relations with the United States and harm efforts to hunt terrorists.

Independent U.S. action should be taken "only if we have a very, very high-value target in our field of view," said O�Hanlon.

Biddle said that he would be "careful" judging from Obama�s campaign statements how aggressive he might be in Pakistan.

"It�s his way of indicating he�s not soft on terrorism," Biddle said. "(But) I would hope that as a citizen and a taxpayer that should Obama be elected, strategy reviews of these positions would take place between him and his advisers."

ying yang......what....he couldn't pay for his own way to see his dear grandmama....you know....the one he called a typical white person. To critical Palin's clothing expense, etc. and not look at what the others are spending as well is wrong.

BTW, who is paying for Obamarama's 2 million dollar party in Chicago come election day?

Joe Biden�s lobbying ties

HOT AIR - How thoroughly did Barack Obama vet Joe Biden? After months of demonizing lobbyists, Obama selected a running mate who has taken millions in contributions from those same lobbyists Obama supposedly eschewed, at least until the DNC started running out of money. In fact, Biden�s son works as a lobbyist on Capitol Hill, accruing the kind of earmarks that Obama has both decried and pursued:

Once again, I want to point out that lobbying is a Constitutionally protected exercise. The First Amendment gives Americans the right to petition Congress, and nothing prohibits or even discourages citizens from organizing in that effort to harness the power of numbers. Run ethically, the practice of lobbying fills an important role in politics.

Of course, I�m not the one declaring lobbyists persona non grata in the Democratic Party. That was Barack Obama, who declared just two months ago that lobbyists would not fund �my party�:

Real estate and miscellaneous finance � wouldn�t that figure into the credit crisis and the housing market collapse?

It looks like Obama didn�t just throw Hope and Change under the bus, but himself right along with it. Whether this is hypocrisy or incompetence, it�s stunning either way.

Nigerian anti-graft investigators have seized money raised by the head of the Nigerian Stock Exchange to support US presidential candidate Barack Obama.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission said it would give the money back to those who attended a gala dinner in Lagos last month.

The EFCC said it had seized 74m naira ($630,000, �314,000), but said no Nigerian laws had been broken.

to respond to my post in such a reasonable and adult manner. Keep up the good work! You must be so proud.

Well, h@ll........I suppose with this glorious reform package of Obama's, I should just go sit under a bridge, kiss my hard working years goodbye. Obama will kill this society. My husband has also worked his butt off since he was 12 years old and he definitely does not owe anyone his money. They can get off their butts and shovel dirt, dig ditches, work in a powder factory, haul hay, move furniture, dig sewages, whatever. WORK FOR A CHANGE! Live within their means. My husband did it. They wanna go to college, do like us, work your butt off and pay for your college education. Quit whining!!!

Even those families at the low end of the income bracket will be paying dearly in taxes, more than now, and they actually think they will be getting a break. Tax credits are NOT tax cuts.

You wanna see free money given to people who DO NOT pay taxes? If you don't contribute, don't expect anything else.

Difference in opinion is what makes horse races. I respect your opinion that the b/c is not authentic, I ask that you respect my opinion that it is.

Irregardless, I think the mayhem that would result in Obama not being inaugurated far outweighs his becoming president even IF his b/c should prove to be inaccurate. After all, we have the Congress to keep things in check although there is little comfort for me in THAT. I doubt the electoral college would dare defy the will of the people either and I would imagine all of them are a bucket full of crooks the same as all congress and other politicians.

I fear that Bush will find a reason to declare martial law and I will continue to fear that until he is OUT OF THERE. Would we really want to see that happen? Can you possibly imagine the bedlam at this 11th hour if we woke up and had no president elect? Please, I ask all of you who are trying to make this happen to stop and think what would be the result if you "win."

I did not want to see either Obama or McCain elected nor did I want to see Hillary elected or any of the other candidates. It's a fine kettle of fish we find ourselves in in any event.

And as a final note, I have no confidence in our crooky Supreme Court either. Look how THEY got in their positions.

Their thought is if he's voted in and goes to prison, they'll be able to hold a special election and put someone else in or something like that.

In fact, 2 years ago, they turned a whole mountain into windmills. Who has those jobs? The company that put them there. Their guys come from another state to maintain and repair them. No locals are employed by that company. Doesn't make sense but that's the way they do it.