Karzai's Brother

Islamabad is in Pakistan. You should learn your geography.

P.S. Canada is your neighbor, up north.

Rusty,

I come from a proud military family, I have friends who have served multiple tours...so just so we're clear your "in the name of the troops" crap would NOT have any currency with them. Guys like you are the same wannabe Rambos we see at the gun range, at the gun shows, and more often than not while we're stopping for a late night burrito at Taco Bell.

Do yourself a favor, stop typing and head to your local library.

Yes, pardon me lizzie. While Joe is currently in Pakistan, I am hopeful he will go to Afghanistan. And, while he is in Afghanistan, he will address those concerns I have proposed.
.
And to dwilli. I am also a "friend" of current military personnel in Afghanistan, a family member of several military men fighting in Afghanistan, AND a veteran myself.
.
So go blow it out your A$$ bucko!! I have every right to express my concerns. When you join and go fight for our freedoms, maybe then you can have an opinion as well to our current President and "Commander in Cheif's" failures in this War thus far.

Rusty,

As a veteran, you know that it would be improper for the troops to comment on what they think of Obama as "Commander in Chief."

As for Obama taking his time, it was something the Bush administration should have done considering all of their blunders in Iraq.

The problem is, while Bush was hunting for non-existant weapons in Iraq, his administration allowed Afghanistan to go to pot. We have a chance to take care of Afghanistan quickly, but Dick Chaney and the gang were looking for ghost al-Qaida fighters in Iraq (who were never in Iraq until we toppled Shaddam) instead of going after the people who masterminded 9/11 who were hiding in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Obama would have not had to deal with this problem if the Bush administration had handled it properly. Now, that he has to clean up Bush's mess, he is taking his time to find a solution, instead of the Bush administration's modus operandi of "Shot first and ask questions later."

By the way, 58% of Americans agree with the President's decision to wait until after the Afghan Presidential runoff vote to make the final determinations regarding our Afghanistan policy going forward.

Unlike you and Cheney, most Americans recognize that we'd be wasting our time,blood and treasure propping up an Afghan government that the Afghan people (and the American people) consider illegitimate.

fhmadvocat:
.
I do think that more of our military should speak out, especially when poor decisions are made or in Obama's case, non-decisions are made when their lives are at stake. Why shouldn't we hear from our own troops in their own words what is the real situation on the ground? Afraid they might expose Obama for what he is? Someone not old enough to know how to change his underwear without being told, let alone making major decisions on further military involvement in Afghanistan. You elected the idiot who has absolutely no sense of judgment, no previous experiences shy of winning a few elections. I have no faith in his abilities to make these types of decisions. We can only pray when he does flip a coin, which seems to be how he makes decisions, the coin falls in our favor and not the terrorists who wish us nothing but our failure and demise.
.
You may be the type who does not question authority, but I do and have. All this bogus bull crap of late how we should be "following the chain of command" so far as McChrystals' request for more troops is simply a Democrats way of postponing making difficult decisions which will affect his political career and those of his croonies seeking election at this time.
.
Obama is not waiting to see who will be elected in Afghanistan. He is holding back increases in troops so that John Corzine doesn't meet with any political opposition when he is so close to losing the election in New Jersey.

Just for Tomintheswamp:
.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6901/is_2009_Oct_8/ai_n39279093/?tag=content;col1
.
You see Tom, when you tell the truth it does make a difference. Perhaps you were just looking at the "Daily Kos" poll where 6 out of 10 DEMOCRATS oppose any surge in troops in Afghanistan.
.
But, as usual, you and the other liberal loons on this site spout out opinions and claim it to be fact.
.
If Obama doesn't increase the troops like he said he would do over 6 months ago, then he should BRING THEM HOME NOW. It is not that difficult of a decision to make. Especially when everyday his non-decision ends with more of our troops being killed in action. Killed because of Obama's INACTION

If Obama doesn't increase the troops like he said he would do over 6 months ago, then he should BRING THEM HOME NOW.

You heard it here first: Rusty is advocating cutting and running.
.
Wonder what happened to his philosophy over the past 8 years that now suddenly he is losing his taste of endless war and occupation?

Rusty,

The military have a chain of command and if there are problems or concerns it should follow that chain . . . . . . .

Reading your response regarding Obama's inexperience made me laugh. Where have you been for the past 8 years? Did you observe how the Bush administration mishandled Iraq and Afghanistan? Rumsfield did not listen to the military brass, but to "chickhen hawks" remember how we to be greeted as "liberators"? How many needless deaths did we suffer in Iraq because the Bush administration would not listen to his generals?

There is an old saying, "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." Obama has learned this lesson, overlearned it in some cases.

The truth is Rusty, you are out of step. Even congressional Republicans agreed with Obama taking his time. Now, they may disagree with his strategy, but he is the Commander in Chief and we don't need another 535.

I have to laugh as well. Last night I heard an interview with a New York Times reporter who was held hostage in Pakistan. He was asked how the Taliban in Pakistan felt about Obama. He stated that they hated Obama much more than they hated Bush. It was because the Obama administration has been much more effective at taking the fight to our true enemies instead of imagined foes.

In fact, in every interview I have seen, our enemies, are much more concerned with Obama's subtle approach than with Bush's bullheaded way of dealing with issues. It must be nice to know that they hate Obama as much as you do.

Obama held back because of the elections in Afghanistan, not New Jersey. Remember Vietnam? Supporting a suspect government? Obama has learned history's lessons, I suggest you do the same.

Suffice it to say, redraven et al. If Obama does not want to make the committment in troops to WIN this war. Then he should bring the troops all home. PERIOD!

Paul,
.
I found it interesting what former marine and current State Department diplomat, Matthew Hoh, had to say yesterday in resigning from his State Department position in Afghanistan:
.

Matthew Hoh, a former marine captain who fought in Iraq and was posted to Afghanistan's Zabul province where the Taliban is strong, questioned the purpose of the war and said that many Afghans were fighting only because foreign troops are in their country.

...

Hoh said that while he regards the Taliban as a malign presence and that al-Qaida in Pakistan needs to be confronted, the US is now involved in what is essentially a civil war. He concluded that the US is not facing a coordinated insurgency but a series of local warlords and fighters.
.
"I didn't realise that a group in this valley here has no connection with an insurgent group two kilometres away," Hoh told the Washington Post.
.
He said there were hundreds, perhaps, thousands of such groups across Afghanistan, most with few ideological ties to the Taliban but resistant to foreign troops. "That's really what kind of shook me," he said. "I thought it was more nationalistic. But it's localism. I would call it valley-ism."

Link to the Matthew Hoh story:
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/27/matthew-hoh-afghanistan-resign-us

These are not "U.S. funds". These are dollars withheld from the paychecks of the women who clean your office at night, Joe Klein.

What a remarkably republican POV even if disguised by mentioning cleaning ladies. "Let's lower taxes instead of spending taxdollars on anything and put more money in the hands of the people." I think that's an accurate summary of what you just said.

Will the appearance of a mile-high glacier of debt curb the ambitions of the wizards in the Ivory Foreign Policy Tower before it is too late to hope to realize more modest American goals like, say, educating our citizens?

I realize that you have an agenda - and we've clashed over it before - but the two things are just not connected like that. There is no inherent "we must do either this OR that" in this. And you haven't yet proved any such choice must be made.

The US is more than capable - economically - of pursuing both internal and external interests, even in the current hole of debt with it's limiting effects. The problem is politics - and if you want to improve education, infrastructure, etc. in the US I suggest you work on the real roadblock - the Senate and the entire political structure itself which heavily favors the status quo. Especially in the domestic arena where interests are usually divided. That's what's holding up education - not Afghanistan.

You had me right up until "centrist Obama". HAHA Voting present is not centrist its clueless.

But I am encouraged you are upset to see cleaning people taxes and parents tuition money being used for corrupt purposes. I look forward to you condemning money to ACORN, corporate bailouts and porkulus plans.

repzak:
.
It's nice to hear from you again; thanks for taking the effort to read through and rebut my commentary.

These are dollars withheld from the paychecks of the women who clean your office at night...
.

What a remarkably republican POV even if disguised by mentioning cleaning ladies.

I'm not sure that I even understand what you mean.
.
How so?

"Let's lower taxes instead of spending taxdollars on anything and put more money in the hands of the people." I think that's an accurate summary of what you just said.

No, that's inaccurate.
.
I think you may have missed this statement:

...the shameful inability to enact that program [building roads, schools, sewers and creating security for the people] here, in the United States, where it --"the people"-- matters most to your fellow citizens.

, without which your summary is somewhat lacking.

I realize that you have an agenda - and we've clashed over it before

I'm glad that you realize that I have an agenda (the improvement of my beloved nation through the enactment of truly liberal policy), because I mean very much for it to be apparent --and transparent.

...the two things are just not connected like that. There is no inherent "we must do either this OR that" in this. And you haven't yet proved any such choice must be made.

In what unlimited resource world to you live? Our funds, our credit, our capacities are obviously limited. There is an ideological component to your declarations, one which presumes that --and I hope you'll forgive the rhetorical flourish-- when the emperor calls, the peasants will provide whatever grain the current campaign requires. That elites seem to regard the vast population of their fellow citizens as a great bucket of slop, from which to pull at will, is the issue.
.
Maybe more importantly, in what political world to you reside?
.
Here's the President spelling out how we are constrained by the zero-sum game of government spending ( link ):

..here's what you need to know.
.
First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future. (Applause.)
.
I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize. (Applause.)
.
Now, part of the reason I faced a trillion-dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for -- from the Iraq war to tax breaks for the wealthy. (Applause.) I will not make that same mistake with health care.

Now, contrary to your impression, I'm not a deficit-hawk-come-lately Republican.
.
I think that building (and borrowing, if it's prudent) our way out of our people's problems --"nation-building", if you will-- is of a higher priority than satisfying ideological compulsions with respect to the deficit.
.
But when the President says that he supports the notions of the Beltway cabal that lords over what can and cannot be done to structurally help our people live successfully, and that "spending cuts" are on their way if savings do not "materialize", then we must take him at his word: we either must do this, or we must do that.
.
There is a choice to be made inherent in the allocation of finite resources...except to those who feel threatened when that reality might apply to them and their ideas.
.
There was a debate in the merging of the health reform bills from the Senate with respect to the point at which subsidies were to be available to folks. The question "Should it be that the government helps folks buy mandated insurance at prices set by insurers when their families make less than $88,200 a year, or when they earn $66,150 a year?" ( link ) was debated. That question is important, because it means the difference between creating a situation in which a large percentage of families don't earn enough to pay a larger and larger share of health insurance costs --but don't earn little enough to qualify for any help-- and creating a solution that ameliorates conditions for all Americans struggling with the health care cost bubble. It's a question that defines the compact between state and citizens.
.
Lest I digress into an analysis of that compact, let me just return to the notion that my argument somehow requires me to "prove" that choices need to be made between the moneys available to fund government subsidies to banks, auto-makers, hedge-funds, corn farmers, the elderly or those who are likely to need significant health care provided to them and their children during their working lives, or government subsidies to the people of Afghanistan provided in the form of military occupation and moneys for Afghani industry, infrastructure and health care.
.
If we take the President at his word, we must conclude that these choices between priorities are being made in terms of policy positions on domestic programs, and if we look at Senate deliberations, we inescapably find the same thing.
.
Why then isn't it incumbent upon you to "prove" that, when it comes to allocating the resources of our fellow citizens, choices don't need to be made?

The US is more than capable - economically - of pursuing both internal and external interests, even in the current hole of debt with it's limiting effects.

Really?
.
Tell that to the folks who find it harder and harder to save college funds for their kids' educations each year.
.
So what?
.
We're "more than capable" of doing any number of profligate things until we finally are forced to face constraints...isn't that one of the great lessons of the past eight years?

The problem is politics - and if you want to improve education, infrastructure, etc. in the US I suggest you work on the real roadblock - the Senate and the entire political structure itself which heavily favors the status quo.

You must know that you are preaching to the choir with that statement, of course this is so.
.
But it strains credibility to look at the costs of these endeavors --especially in light of TARP II-- and dismiss their impact on what may be available for our most important national requirements. As Nobel award-winning economist Joe Stiglitz notes in a February 2008 TimesUK piece entitled "The three trillion dollar war", these costs have "have grown to staggering proportions" ( link ):

The cost of direct US military operations - not even including long-term costs such as taking care of wounded veterans - already exceeds the cost of the 12-year war in Vietnam and is more than double the cost of the Korean War.
.
The only war in our history which cost more was the Second World War, when 16.3 million U.S. troops fought in a campaign lasting four years, at a total cost (in 2007 dollars, after adjusting for inflation) of about $5 trillion (that's $5 million million, or £2.5 million million). With virtually the entire armed forces committed to fighting the Germans and Japanese, the cost per troop (in today's dollars) was less than $100,000 in 2007 dollars. By contrast, the Iraq war is costing upward of $400,000 per troop.
.
Most Americans have yet to feel these costs. The price in blood has been paid by our voluntary military and by hired contractors. The price in treasure has, in a sense, been financed entirely by borrowing. Taxes have not been raised to pay for it - in fact, taxes on the rich have actually fallen. Deficit spending gives the illusion that the laws of economics can be repealed, that we can have both guns and butter. But of course the laws are not repealed. The costs of the war are real even if they have been deferred, possibly to another generation.
.
As the fifth year of the war draws to a close, operating costs (spending on the war itself, what you might call “running expenses”) for 2008 are projected to exceed $12.5 billion a month for Iraq alone, up from $4.4 billion in 2003, and with Afghanistan the total is $16 billion a month. Sixteen billion dollars is equal to the annual budget of the United Nations, or of all but 13 of the US states.

Joe Stiglitz is, of course, correct when he states:
.
"Deficit spending gives the illusion that the laws of economics can be repealed, that we can have both guns and butter. But of course the laws are not repealed."
.
When you say
.
"That's what's holding up education - not Afghanistan."
.
, you at once admit and deny the systemic nature of the profligacy. Yes, it is Afghanistan which saps our blood and treasure. Yes, it is a foreign policy that finds comfort in the status quo of indefinite occupation that works hand in hand with the "occupation" (if you will) of unpopular, status quo interests in our capitol generally and in the Senate specifically. The illusion of which Stiglitz speaks is the illusion of the capitol --of an imperial court at latter-day Versailles. The status quo is an illusion.
.
Look, either we can borrow indefinitely for all things, in which case you and I need to go form a lobby to advocate loudly for such policy, or we can't, in which case you and I need to come to decisions about what really are the most useful expenditures to make.
.
If it is as unconscionable to you as it is to me that moneys would be spent on roads, schools, hospitals and bridges in the countryside of Kabul while needs in the countryside of Little Rock or Detroit are being unmet, then isn't it your job in a finite economic world to prove that the money taken out of the paychecks of the women who clean Joe Klein's office wouldn't be better spent making our nation --and its people-- stronger at home?
.
Isn't it becoming more clear to you that we, as a nation, must focus on improving ourselves first, before we minister (or lecture) to others?
.
Shouldn't all state policy reflect the reality that we need to get our house in order?
.
Thanks for reading and considering this, repzak.

Stuart:
.
Thanks for the kind words - and I feel likewise about our discussions. It is a pleasure to debate with a reasoned, opinionated but honest person like yourself. That said I sincerely hope you'll forgive that my reply will not match yours in volume That was a lot of text (albeit interesting).
.
Let me start by saying that I'm well aware of the somewhat cheap shot I took about the Republican POV - I know that's not your political position, but that's truly how that part read to me, so I felt compelled to point it out. You never know if a person has changed their views. I'm glad you clarified it, although given your followup, I must instead chide your use of overly evocative images with little actual bearing on the point. Talking about the "money withheld from the paychecks of [hardworking Americans]" is a rhetorical trick here, since it's not really about paychecks. But enough about that.
.
In what unlimited resource world to you live? Our funds, our credit, our capacities are obviously limited. There is an ideological component to your declarations, one which presumes that --and I hope you'll forgive the rhetorical flourish-- when the emperor calls, the peasants will provide whatever grain the current campaign requires. That elites seem to regard the vast population of their fellow citizens as a great bucket of slop, from which to pull at will, is the issue.
.
While I will readily admit to making certain assumptions, I must point out that you do so as well. This is not a choice between "unlimited" and "extremely limited" resources as you'd like to paint it. I find it far more likely that we are in fact somewhere in between. I will admit I cannot at this time produce links or other hard proof of having enough resources to both be present in Afghanistan and improve education and infrastructure, but neither have you produced even the slightest hint of evidence that the situation is so dire and the resources so limited that only one thing can be done at a time.
.
Circumstantial evidence at least should provide some backing to my view. There are plenty of places to save money - not least of which would be a proper HCR or Gates' reforms of military spending, which could then be used productively to increase education etc. Even if not TARP and the Stimulus are extreme short-term solutions that (hopefully) will not need repeating. Nor will a crisis last, and the economy will improve.
.
Now don't get me wrong - I agree in all cases with a critical eye on expenses, and that obviously includes foreign troop-deployment, however, what has been an excessive drain on US resources for years is Iraq - and that is as far as I know being dialed down on schedule.
.
Your reactions still seem to me to be knee-jerk reactions to the crisis (or a nice excuse to present ideological views on isolationism, I'm not sure which), rather than a thought out response. The US is spending less on overseas military now than a few years ago, and even at it's worst Iraq and Afghanistan combined "only" about ~$130 billion to a total DoD budget of ~$650 billion. Yes it's a very large amount of money, but compared to the total US budget - what is spent on TARP, Stimulus and HC - and standard military expenses it's just not that much. Iraq almost certainly carries over half that amount, but even if we split it evenly it puts the Afghanistan mission at ~$65 billion. I believe I've seen estimates at ~$3.5 billion per months making it ~$42 billion total. For comparison the total US budget is ~$3 trillion = $3.000 billion.
.
But when the President says that he supports the notions of the Beltway cabal that lords over what can and cannot be done to structurally help our people live successfully, and that "spending cuts" are on their way if savings do not "materialize", then we must take him at his word: we either must do this, or we must do that.
.
But this is - as I'm sure you are aware and agree - mostly a result of political pressure and not actual economic reality. Not "spending another dime" is a new third rail in US politics at this time - and not necessarily a true limitation. However, even if we assume that we must obey this political limitation as I pointed out above the Afghanistan mission is just not that expensive. What is needed to fund better education and infrastructure is reforms of the really expensive parts of the US budget which is largely Social Security and Health Care (with general military spending #3).
.
Tell that to the folks who find it harder and harder to save college funds for their kids' educations each year.
.
That's kind of dishonest argumentation there. I said the US as a nation is capable of improving education, infrastructure, etc. without abandoning the world. That really doesn't have anything to do with what you write - sure it's a great evocative image you paint of the struggling American family, but my entire point was that it's possible to improve their situation without abandoning other pursuits overseas. The fact that this is not done is not due to Afghanistan - it's due to the beltway politics and special interests.
.
I'm going to cut this short, but I'm mosty in agreement with everything else you wrote. At the end of the day I believe you and I agree 100% on the importance of "bringing our own house in order" as you put it. The state of both education, health care and infrastructure today is disturbing and embarrassing.
.
I just feel like you are taking the easy way out by blaming Afghanistan and "diplomats in ivory towers" instead of the real problem which is lobbyists, special interests, the structure of the Senate and beltway politics. If every American soldier got home from Afghanistan tomorrow it would not help one whit in bringing better education, health care or infrastructure, because those issues would still be locked up for the same reasons they've been locked up for 50 years.
.
Thus I think we agree in the goal - but disagree on how to get there.

I am sorry. The reply ate my blockquotes... I hope my reply is still readable...

repzak:

I'm mosty in agreement with everything else you wrote. At the end of the day I believe you and I agree 100% on the importance of "bringing our own house in order" as you put it. The state of both education, health care and infrastructure today is disturbing and embarrassing...

Then perhaps we should leave it there for today.
.
Thank you very much for the cogent and polite reply, and for the effort of reading and contributing to commentary, repzak.
.
I will consider what you've written.

I doubt she would recognize Joe. He probably spends his press trips being ordered to make coffee and do laundry.

When will we ever tell the Saudi monarchs about themselves? They give $ to the ones we're fighting against, treat women as less than chattel, and yet they're our allies??? With friends like them....

Why is it so "hazy", progressto? You have the choice to listen to a low level marine turned diplomat in one specific tribal area of Afghanistan or you can listen to the Commanding General of our forces in Afghanistan who has access to ALL the information from his troops.
.
While I respect Hoh's opinion, his perspective is very limited, even to the point that his level of experience to make such claims is in question.
.
Hoh has the right to speak out and resign. He is also to be questioned on his judgment and statements as well.
.
I respectfully disagree with him, and believe that if given the time and troops, we can stabilize this region of the middle east the same as we did in Iraq.
.
The bigger question is "does Obama have what it takes to make these types of tough decisions"? I think not, and Obama will prove to be what I have said for a long time he is. Someone with no judgment skills, no previous experiences to fall back on, and a President who is being advised by nothing but a pack of liberal lunatics from the recesses of MoveOn.Org and Daily Kos.

rusty,
.
When you write:
.

I respectfully disagree with him, and believe that if given the time and troops, we can stabilize this region of the middle east the same as we did in Iraq.

.
... you're simply pulling another George Bush "Mission Accomplished" moment.
.
As recent events in Iraq indicate, when we pull out, sectarian strife returns -- and is likely to return with a vengeance ("vengeance" being the operative word) -- on an ongoing basis.
.
So would you have us stay in Iraq indefinitely? If so, how long should we stay? A year? Ten years? What's your time frame?
.
What's your time frame on Afghanistan, a much more challenging country and situation than even Iraq? A year? Three years? A decade?
.
It's all well and good to talk tough, but I suspect you and others arguing for more troops in Afghanistan are more inclined to "Mission Accomplished" moments than anything grounded in reality.
.
Even George Bush said this week that his "Mission Accomplished" moment was a mistake he wished he hadn't made.
.

palinatowel:
.
Since it is difficult for you to understand and comprehend, let me bring in other areas of the world that we continue to have a military presense.
.
South Korea perhaps. Do you also believe we should pull all troops and funding out of that area of the world as well?
.
Maybe our bases in Europe. Do you also believe we should pull all troops and military from those areas too?
.
How long have we been in those areas of the world, palinatowel? I think over 50 or 60 years now would be the answer.
.
How long should we stay in Iraq? As long as it is necessary and to keep us safe here at home.
.
I agree, George Bush II should have concentrated on Afghanistan, instead of Iraq, in hindsight. But, he didn't. And the vast majority of our representatives, Democrats and Republicans alike in Washington agreed with his policies at the time. Not to mention the vast majority of Americans as well.
.
My disagreement is simply, if you are going to go to War, then dammit go to WIN the war. If that is "Mission Accomplished" mentality, then so be it.
.
Don't go into it half-a$$ed. Half-baked measures will only end up in Vietnam like situations. If Obama wants another Vietnam on his hands, he will make the poor decision to not increase the number of troops. A decision that is totally the opposite of what McChrystal recommends. If he does not want another Vietnam, then he should simply bring all of the troops home now, put them all on the borders and wait for the enemy to confront us on our own soil.
.
That palininatowel is the alternative.
.
And, your "recent events in Iraq", is simply that. An up-tick in the Sunni / Shia struggles before another election, coupled with the military draw-down of our own troops. It would be expected that the lunatics left over from that War would attempt to blow smoke. If there was a true and sustained "revolt", I think you would see the return of daily bombings of the market places. The overall success in Iraq is very evident, and your perspective is simply wishful thinking that it would all go to hell so that you can yet again blame George Bush for all the problems.
.
Obama has two maybe three important things to focus on at this time.
.
1. The Economy
2. Further stabilization of Iraq
3. Increase the troops in Afghanistan to win that War or get the hell out of that God forsaken place.
.
The rest of Obama's agenda and policies are not critical at this time and can be put aside. The unfortunate thing is, he won't do it. He will continue to focus on health care reform, when that is one of the least things most Americans are worried about.

Ax expected, rusty, you have no answers to my questions. Instead, you trot out the tired, old Dick Cheney defense:
.

How long should we stay in Iraq? As long as it is necessary and to keep us safe here at home.

What in god's name does a civil war in Iraq have to do with keeping "us safe here at home?"
.
Why is Iraq central to our national defense? You're not going to bring up the Cheney lie that it is the "central front in the war on terror," are you? What goes on Iraq is primarily a civil war.
.
And I will guarantee you that there will be a major civil war in Iraq. If not this year, within the next three years. You're the one kidding yourself.
.
Ironic that you bring up Vietnam. How many troops did we have in Vietnam at its peak? Any guess, rusty? And who finally pulled the plug on that epic misadventure?
.
As for the same, tired old examples of our bases in Korea and Europe, are you suggesting we commit the same long-term assets to new outposts in Afghanistan and Iraq? Seriously? And how do you propose to continue to pay for those? I know you don't want a tax increase!Will we get NATO help in Iraq and Afghanistan as we do in Europe? To the same extent?
.
As for Afghanistan, we will not be the first nor, probably, the last to discover that the country is ungovernable from a central authority. The British established the boundaries of the country and finally had to admit that it was ungovernable. The Russians found out the same thing. You may question the comments of Matthew Hoh, but what he says tracks with the history of Afghanistan.
.

Rusty -- its incredibly creepy how you blast a line of logic when it doesn't support you, but cling to it shamelessly when you think it does. You're right, Hoh's experience is more limited than McChrystal's, but you do realize that's the same line of logic that the President used in justifying his differences with the Generals. so how do you claim that the president ought to defer to the guys on the ground whose concerns are limited to their own battlefield and the president's concerns encompass a much wider area of interests and information to consider? I'm just saying, if the area of interests and information is a legitimate factor in your point of view, why is not legitimate if when the factor doesn't support your position? Or are you saying that logic is only logic when it supports the right and by supporting the left its by definition illogical?

As expected progresso, your tired liberal lines and questions are simply the past liberal talking points that got us into this situation from the start.
.
Had Clinton done what he should have done during his administration, then al-Qaeda would be nothing but a footnote in history. But, Clinton balked. He allowed BinLaden and al-Qaeda to grow into the terrorist group that struck New York City, and caused the Twin Towers to fall killing over 3,000 Americans.
.
Talk up what you want, blame Bush all you want just like the current Administration has been doing for the past 10 months now.
.
You have a choice, bring the troops home or fight the enemy on their own ground. You are a Democrat and/or Liberal. Right now, your party is in control and can make the decisions. Hopefully, they choose wisely.
.
If Obama chooses to fight, then provide the necessary level of troops in order to get the job done. My bet is he will waiver and waffle as most Democrats do on this sort of thing and eventually bow to the far left base of support. People like you and the rest of the self-identified liberals on this site, palininagtowel et al.
.
But, never fear. The Republicans will again take this country back over again and solve the problems that you neglect to solve or are unwilling to face.

rusty, you really lack a sense of irony, don't you?
.
First you write:
.

Had Clinton done what he should have done during his administration, then al-Qaeda would be nothing but a footnote in history.

.
Blaming Clinton has been a Republican obsession since Clinton was elected back in 1996. In fact, as inept as Bush and Cheney were, pretty much all of their many mishaps were somehow blamed on Clinton. And in your next paragraph you write:
.

Talk up what you want, blame Bush all you want just like the current Administration has been doing for the past 10 months now.

.
You are good for comic relief...

rusty, one more thing...
.
I note you did not reply to any of the substantive questions I posed to you in my earlier post. Let me repat them for you:
.

What in god's name does a civil war in Iraq have to do with keeping "us safe here at home?"

.

Ironic that you bring up Vietnam. How many troops did we have in Vietnam at its peak? Any guess, rusty? And who finally pulled the plug on that epic misadventure?

.

As for the same, tired old examples of our bases in Korea and Europe, are you suggesting we commit the same long-term assets to new outposts in Afghanistan and Iraq? Seriously? And how do you propose to continue to pay for those? I know you don't want a tax increase!Will we get NATO help in Iraq and Afghanistan as we do in Europe? To the same extent?

.
I look forward to your answers...

.

I'm not an expert on Afghanisan by any means. Given all the various ethinic and religious differences in that country, can someone please explain to me what is holding it together as a country anyway?

queencersei - Afghanistan was basically created in the aftermath of British colonial conquest of the region. The British forces thrust northwest-ward to expand the imperial borders of British India, and encountered strong resistance from the Pashtuns. The Brits were successful in conquering part of the Pashtun lands, but were not able to conquer all of them. The Pashtuns conquered by the British were incorporated into the NorthWest Frontier Province of British India. Meanwhile the unconquered Pashtuns to the north took neighboring lands they similarly conquered and cobbled them all together to make Afghanistan, itself a patchwork state. Ever since then, this patchwork country has been the object of tug-of-war by large neighboring powers - whether from British India, whose legacy was inherited by Pakistan, or whether from Russia/USSR, or whether from Iran.

The point is that these Pashtuns, who make up the overwhelming majority of the Taliban, once lived in their own common land. The Brits ripped that land in two, and it's been in a state of chaos and backwardness ever since, thus vulnerable to infection by all kinds of extremism, now including AlQaeda and Taliban.

Restoring a single common Pashtun state for their people would help to end the current problems there. Instead of being an patchwork, it would be based around Pashtun ethnicity. Therefore the glue of Islamist religious ideology would be sidelined by the ethnic nationalism of a common Pashtun identity. A state based on Pashtun ethnicity would have the political unity to competently administer over the people, and eliminate the Taliban, whose membership are overwhelmingly Pashtun. This is the way to win in Afghanistan, and to leave a lasting legacy that will survive long after a US withdrawal from the region.

But, manofsan, if we only commit 40,000 more troops, we'll solve the enigmatic riddle that is Afghanistan. That's what I'm being told upthread, anyway...

palininatowel - the enigma and ignorance over Afghanistan is more a function of the very highly motivated political interest groups intermediating between Washington and that faraway land. I'm talking about groups who have a vested interest in keeping that place under the grip of fanaticism and militancy because they'd like to retain the militant zealots there as surrogates for use in any future confrontation against Moscow.

In psychology, this is referred to as a Co-Dependent Relationship. This is when someone who claims to be helping or healing someone else is actually trying to keep that person sick, because they are deriving some kind of benefit from keeping that person sick.

Pakistan benefits from continuing to inject the Pashtuns with Islamist fanaticism, even while it takes aid from the US under the pretense of fighting it, because this Islamist ideology keeps local Pashtun ethnic nationalism from asserting itself to seek independence from Pakistan. So the Pakistanis are running with the foxes while hunting with the hounds, in a precarious balancing act.

Meanwhile, you have a large Atlanticist lobby in the United States who are happy to go to war over Yugoslavia, but quickly put on their hippie T-shirts when it comes to war against Islamists in Asia who have attacked the US homeland. And at the same time, I see newly-declared "liberals" suddenly praising chief culprits like Zbigniew Brzezinski as their benevolent preacher of peaceful reason. Lenin's phrase "useful idiots" really comes to mind, here.

With "friends" like this, no wonder Americans have a very foggy picture on what needs to be done on Afghanistan, or on national security in general.

Precisely, manofsan. That is the same reason that many Middle Eastern governments never want the Palestinian issue solved. The Palestinians provide a place for these regimes to hang their "I-support-the-Arab/Muslim-cause" hats. This acts as distraction to the repressive tactics they use in their own countries to hold onto power.
.
One truth about the citizenry of the United States: our navel-gazing focus on all things U.S. makes us among the most uninformed citizens of the world of any developed nation. I was traveling in Europe this past summer and was constantly surprised at how much more informed on world events average citizens were there as opposed to here.
.
That's one reason why so many here will swallow banalities like, "We're spreading freedom and democracy" as evident truths when the actual truth is, quite often, much, much darker.

And I am sure you also believe in fairy tales and the Easter Bunny too!

No, really, Rustydog: the "far left" means "international dictatorship of the proletariat", not Dick Durbin.
.
Have you ever actually met any real Maoists?

rusty knows socialists when he sees them. It's the way they part their hair. Glenn Beck told him what to look for...

Quite informative. It explains why everyone to the right of Van Jones is a hard right wing conservative nutjob and Ayers and Obama are "moderates" It brings to light that the line extending to what is the far left is light years from center and the line that goes to the right is a short skip away.

An alterantive explanation could be what may be underlying the recent Gallop poll on ideology and Rasmussen poll on health care.

In Gallop Conservatives were 40% Moderates 36% and Liberals 20%.

Rasmussen HC poll: HC reform will increase costs 57%, Reduce quality of care 53% and better than doing nothing 39%. Since the first 2 of Rasmussen probably align more with the conservative view and the last with liberals, the Gallop poll may be a tad inaccurate.

Given the view of liberals of what is far left, they may have a firm belief they are moderate while some conservatives for fear of undergoing the barrage of insults and name calling call themselves moderate as well. If you score up the median between the 2 polls, the conservatives probably are closer to 54% while liberals are closer to 36% with moderates being the balance.

In either event liberals are a decided minority historically owing in large part to failed ideas for this country.

You're right, freeinpa...
.

If you score up the median between the 2 polls, the conservatives probably are closer to 54% while liberals are closer to 36% with moderates being the balance.

.
That's why Obama lost the election.
.
Oh... Wait a minute...

palininatowel

No. As I stated here several times. Obama won the election and Dumos won Congress by running as Moderates/conservatives. The press preferred to have a tingle up their legs than to question anything about Obama. Now he is trying to put his agenda it has to be passed in the dark of night with no one reading anything. Obama's ideas and administration held up to the light of day and people run screaming from the room. By the end of his second year with the scrutiny that the moderates and independents who were originally fooled he and his cohorts won't be able to pass gas let alone any major legislation.

Well there are below average intelligence conservatives just like liberals. Sorry bad example, below average intelligence and liberal are redundant.

And yes people were fooled. Even liberals who thought the war in Iraq, Gitmo and all things Bush would end the day after inauguration.

They get fooled as they usually do in the belief that change meant improvement. As we now see it didn't.

So, free, you are convinced that Obama loses in 2012? Do Republicans regain control of the House in 2010? How about the Senate?

We should definitely wager, rusty.
.
So you claim the GOP regains control of the House and Senate in 2010 and Obama loses in 2012?
.
Heh. Talk to you in a little over a year from now...

palininatowel

Unless after HC reform goes down in flames, Obama and Demos start to govern like centrists, a la Clinton. The it depends if Repubs run a Reagan like candidate or a RINO.

I want some of that bet too. I think democrats will lose some seats in both the house and the senate in 2010 but not enough to lose control of either. Several of the blue dogs are going to be toast.