Progressive Bloggers Launch ‘Get Afghanistan Right’ Campaign Opposing Troop Escalation
Progressive Bloggers Launch ‘Get Afghanistan Right’ Campaign Opposing Troop Escalation
President-elect Obama campaigned on a plan to deploy up to 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But the “incoming administration does not anticipate that the Iraq-like ’surge’ of forces will significantly change the direction” of the conflict. Instead, it hopes that the troops will “buy enough time for the new administration to reappraise the entire Afghanistan war effort and develop a comprehensive new strategy,” the Washington Post reports today.
This week, a coalition of progressive bloggers — spearheaded by Brave New Films (BNF) and The Seminal — are launching a campaign called Get Afghanistan Right. Bloggers will talk about the risks of escalation, the current situation in Afghanistan, the effects of the war domestically, and potential solutions. Robert Greenwald writes:
With the economy continuing a severe decline and the international scene in turmoil, we absolutely cannot afford a hugely expensive troop increase in Afghanistan. The country desperately needs many of the reforms and programs proposed by the incoming Obama administration. But, an escalation in Afghanistan will cripple our ability to mitigate the effects of the recession while making that country less stable. The success of the President-elect’s broader agenda depends on his ability to get us out of President Bush’s wars.
Interviewing The Washington Note’s Steve Clemons on Jan. 8, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow stated, “Maybe there is not a consensus about what to do in Afghanistan. Maybe there is no good war. Watch it:
Speaking about the Bush years, a senior U.S. military commander told the Post, “We have no strategic plan. We never had one.” A retired senior officer with ties to the Obama team added, “One of the problems is you don’t really know what kind of forces, and how many, until you know what strategy you’re going to have.”
Spencer Ackerman has more on the campaign and future Afghanistan policy.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The Industrial Military Complex cannot survive without endless, meaningless wars.
While not very difficult to comprehend, it will NEVER, it CAN never be stopped.
Not until the United Corporate States of America is returned to it’s rightful owners – THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:32 amLest we forget that Afghanistan was the final nail in the Soviet Unions military machine…
January 13th, 2009 at 10:44 amand the Soviet Union, Nevar. If the MIC really wants to show off its stuff why don’t they just buy Afghanistan.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:51 amBasically, that is what they are trying to do. And we get the bill.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:52 amMaybe there is no good war.
Amen to that, sister.
There hasn’t been a “good war” since the war against the Third Reich.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:59 amDNFP Says:
The Industrial Military Complex cannot survive without endless, meaningless wars.
Bombs sitting in a magazine don’t need to be replaced.
.
Nevar Says:
Lest we forget that Afghanistan was the final nail in the Soviet Unions military machine…
Both the British Empire and the USSR broke against Afghanistan.
.
I believe that we can accomplish our goals there, but we can’t do it just by throwing soldiers at it.
However, Obama’s original point was that more infantry means less aerial patrols, and therefore less collateral damage to civilians, which would be a good thing. As I recall, the wingnuts got mad at him for daring to suggest that we should slaughter fewer noncombatants.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:00 amGood for them!
Our leaders should know from history that Afghanistan is unbeatable and cannot be occupied by foreign countries and their military. Bring our troops home now! We can no longer sustain the cost of these two failed wars brought on by the Bushites.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:02 amIt’ll be exactly the same as Iraq. We’ll have a “goal”, but nobody will know what the goal looks like. We’ll realize months later that the goal has been reached, but we’ll already be into some other excuse for keeping the war going, and we won’t be able to allow all those soldiers to have “died in vain”, so we’ll just keep pouring our money and our children into it and waiting for it to belch out diamonds and gold. Ultimately we will either destroy our own country, much the same way the Soviet Union did, or someone firmer of spine will take over and stop the slaughter. Or maybe the Muslim world will unite and blow us off the face of the earth.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:02 amconniptionfit, the Muslim world doesn’t have to ‘unite and blow us off the face of the earth.’ All they have to do is sit back and wait for the war rabies to go into the terminal stage and we devour ourselves.
War and violence are still the least effective means of conflict resolution. As Mr. Miagi (not sure of the spelling) said…the best way to avoid getting hit is to not be there when the punch comes. (Paraphase)
January 13th, 2009 at 11:14 amI thought he said he wanted to find bin Laden. Once he finds the intel that he’s already dead maybe he’ll call the whole thing off.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:19 amI do not understand why people still want to go to war with the status we’ve around the world right now.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:24 amLet’s fix our self before we try to “fix” anything else.
This is competely insane.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:28 amThe Taliban is gaining strength, and some Americans are saying we need LESS troops there?
Some wars are worth fighting. The Taliban, through their agents, attacked the United States. The Taliban needs to be defeated.
The one campaign pledge I anticipate Mr.O will quickly and assiduously fulfill was his promise of a surge in Afghanistan.
Everything else will pound sand until that pledge is met…
January 13th, 2009 at 11:30 amLet’s fix our self before we try to “fix” anything else.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Not you, not your children, if there are any, nor THEIR children if THEY have any, will live long enough to witness the “fix” of any of the catastrophic clusterphuques the Busheviks have left behind…
January 13th, 2009 at 11:34 amWow, I dunno….if I had a dime for every time I heard Obama say Afghanistan was a just war and we had to send more troops there during the campaign….I don’t think that is a pledge he can back off of, politically. All we ever heard was how Bush screwed up sending men to Iraq when they should have gone to the Stan…now the Dems are going to say “just kidding”? NATO will bail in a Berlin minute if we pull out, and then the whole country will go back to what it was in the 90’s, except probably worse.
Yes, we can fight smarter. Yes, drawing down troops in Iraq will make the job easier. Yes, we should probably just buy the place. But yes, you will see more Marines sent in. The Dems, and Obama in particular, cannot be seen to be weak on this issue, it would be handing the R’s a knife.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:39 amLets try this Skeeter. The British, The Soviet Union and now the US has spent billions, maybe trillions of dollars, sacrificed untold thousands of lives and as you yourself said, the Taliban is gaining strength.
One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Another is believing you can change anyone’s mind with a gun.
But if you really think war is the answer I think the recruiting stations are still open for business.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:41 amToday’s oxymoron: Fight smarter.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:42 amNo skeeter, you are the one who is insane. These wars even if they were worth fighting should have been long over with.
Please explain why with 95% of the worlds military might, we have taken 7 years to defeat an army with .01% of the worlds military might.
smacks of intent…..it was never to win, only to fight and make money.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:43 amKeltoi at Night Says:
Or we could broker for peace…..guess that wasn’t an option you had considered….heh.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:47 amFred Says:
Keltoi at Night Says:
Or we could broker for peace…..guess that wasn’t an option you had considered….heh.
Actually, I’d be fine with that, assuming we could find some partners willing to broker an actual peace. I know Karzai has tried talking with the Taliban. But I am not willing to see Afghanistan go back to Mullah Omar’s vision of a just society where women are executed for going outside without a male relative, and I assume you aren’t either.
Should the Taliban go the route of the IRA, put down their guns, join the political process, agree to live by the principles of the Afghan constitution and accept a pluralisitic society, by all means, let there be Peace. But failing that, there won’t be Peace, and Obama knows damn well he can’t just capitulate. Ain’t gonna happen.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:54 amYou mean like hammas should just quit fighting so there can be peace…..like that?
You fail to recognize that war is not a solution for these problems……bush mentality.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:05 pmEnlighten me, Fred – what is your solution to Afghanistan?
January 13th, 2009 at 12:09 pmWhen Skeeter, when did they attack the United States?
January 13th, 2009 at 12:15 pmNot endless war!! I’m not having a long winded discussion with you Keltoy, I don’t respect you as some here do. I’ve known you too long.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:20 pmFred Says:
Keltoi at Night Says:
Enlighten me, Fred – what is your solution to Afghanistan?
Not endless war!! I’m not having a long winded discussion with you Keltoy, I don’t respect you as some here do. I’ve known you too long.
“Toro! Toro! OLE!”
Nice dodge, Fred.
I will take that for a “I have no solution to Afghanistan.”
Tell you what. Even though you have enough respect for me to rebut my very reasonable and accurate points at 15 and 20 with condescending snark but don’t have the same amount of respect to pick up the conch when I hand it to you, do it for the benefit of all the other posters here for whom you do have respect. Do it for the people, Fred.
Repeat: What is President Fred’s solution to Afghanistan?
January 13th, 2009 at 12:32 pmWell, Keltoi, dismissing rational discussion before a real attempt is made sure won’t make anything new happen.
And if the Afghani’s decide they want to make it a law their women can’t go outside without a male escort, ya know, it is their country. Novel thought there.
The idea of having dialogue only with people you agree with leads to really boring stuff.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:38 pmHoodathunk Says:
And if the Afghani’s decide they want to make it a law their women can’t go outside without a male escort, ya know, it is their country. Novel thought there.
Christ wept.
“Yeah, and if the Germans decide they want to make soap out of Jews, well, it is their country, ya know.”
Gimme a break. You call yourself a Progressive, but you are okay with a legislative system where only men have a voice that generates laws repressing women in the most hideous way possible based on the fact that it is “their country”?? Is it not the Afghani women’s country, too? Or do they only get to see the insides of their houses?
Zooey? Annie? Little help here?
January 13th, 2009 at 12:43 pmThat’s not respect……that’s just countering the ignorance.
Your so called accurate posts at 15 and 20….you’re funny..
This is what your “accurate” posts reccommended:
So, everyone must capitulate for there to be peace, is that your solution?
You call that accurate? How so? You think there is no possibility that peace could break out now that botch is gone?
I’m done wit ya for today little fella.
January 13th, 2009 at 1:04 pmFredand Hoodathunk,
So your solution is to let the people that attacked the U.S. win?
Are you claiming that Afghanistan is completely ungovernable?
Your responses smack of both racism and cowardice. “You cannot govern Afghanistanis” sure looks like you consider the people inherently evil and ungovernable.
And your idea that the United States should ever back off in a war against those who attacked us would send a signal to the world that the United States is unwilling to stand up against our enemies.
January 13th, 2009 at 1:11 pmYou’re the coward….you’re afraid of everything…
January 13th, 2009 at 1:22 pmThe US is building Military bases on Afegahnistan to protect the proposed Oil Pipeline, in the process, it is occupying illegaly another country, killing civilians, denying killing civilians, arming dangerous war lords, drug trafficking through CIA so they can get more cash, torturing.
January 13th, 2009 at 1:36 pmObamaShortChange is proposing increasing troop levels, NOT ENDING THE WAR!
All with TAX Payers money, while the US’s economy is in shambles…
1#
DNFP Says:
The Industrial Military Complex cannot survive without endless, meaningless wars.
While not very difficult to comprehend, it will NEVER, it CAN never be stopped.
Things that can go on forever, Don’t! The USA has a massive debt of Trillions of dollars. The economy has collapsed.
Militarism does not produce anything, that is, what they produce is ‘expendable’ (sorry my english). Many jobs in the US today is connected with militarism, not products that makes the wheels of the economy roll. All products are made in China today, and the USA is not their only client!
Read “NEMESIS” of Chalmers Johnsosn! Also YouTube his interviews about his trilogy books: ‘Blowback’, ‘The Sorrows of the Empire’ and ‘Nemesis’.!
January 13th, 2009 at 1:43 pmI menat to paraphrase Chalmers Johsosn: Things that can’t go on forever, don’t!
January 13th, 2009 at 1:46 pmOK. I’ll put you down for one complete dodge, one baseless ad hominem attack and an order of total lack of substance. Don’t you ever get bored of the same menu?
Fred Says:
——————————————————————————–
Keltoi at Night Says:
Tell you what. Even though you have enough respect for me to rebut my very reasonable and accurate points at 15 and 20
That’s not respect……that’s just countering the ignorance.
Substantive response, there, “little fella”, or just wanna stick with your specialty of calling people ignorant based completely on the fact they don’t agree with you? Course, since you won’t give a single suggestion on what Obama should do, it is hard to say what you think.
Your so called accurate posts at 15 and 20….you’re funny..
This is what your “accurate” posts reccommended:
Yes, we can fight smarter…
Should the Taliban put down their guns
So, everyone must capitulate for there to be peace, is that your solution?
As far as I can tell, your solution is for NATO and the US to unilaterally capitulate. Could be wrong – what was your solution for Afghanistan again?
You call that accurate? How so? You think there is no possibility that peace could break out now that botch is gone?
Yeah, Good Plan! Bush is no longer President – let’s pull the hell out of there on Jan 21 and lets just watch that Peace break out all over the place! Just like it did in the 90’s! Could you seriously address the issue?
I’m done wit ya for today little fella.
Lil Fella, you never even started. You got nothing and you know it, so away you scamper. Enjoy the view from under your desk.
OR – answer the question: Your solution to Afghanistan is????
January 13th, 2009 at 1:53 pm“Fred Says:
——————————————————————————–
Skeeter1 Says:
Your responses smack of both racism and cowardice.
You’re the coward….you’re afraid of everything…”
Not everything, Fred.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:10 pmBut I do admit that the Taliban running Afghanistan scares the heck out of me. The Taliban strongly supported the group that attacked the U.S. in 9/11/01, and further, when the Taliban ran Afghanistan the first time, the abuse was mind-boggling.
But apparently torture and war crimes only matter when they are committed by the U.S., and they don’t bother Fred when done by our enemies.
Hey Skeeter, I have drunk as much of Fred’s milkshake as I can take, you want the rest?
January 13th, 2009 at 2:14 pmKeltoi, there is a huge difference between killing people and being butts for religious reasons over how they treat their people. It wasn’t that long ago that we, the mighty US, treated our women in Taliban fashion…check the date on the amendment for women’s suffrage.
And do not play the Christ wept card. This is the man who took on Roman (and Jewish) mandates with such empty sayings as turn the other cheek, walk a mile, all men are brothers. That guy talked with everybody. Supposedly brought a New Testament that included things like tolerance and compassion and love.
Yeah, it is their country.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:14 pmHood,
January 13th, 2009 at 2:21 pmYou think killing girls because they want to attend school is consistent with “tolerance and compassion”?
Looks like we define those terms differently.
Hoodathunk Says:
Keltoi, there is a huge difference between killing people and being butts for religious reasons over how they treat their people. It wasn’t that long ago that we, the mighty US, treated our women in Taliban fashion…check the date on the amendment for women’s suffrage.
To compare women not having the franchise to women being shot in the head in a soccer stadium for going outside is quite a reach, my friend.
And do not play the Christ wept card. This is the man who took on Roman (and Jewish) mandates with such empty sayings as turn the other cheek, walk a mile, all men are brothers. That guy talked with everybody. Supposedly brought a New Testament that included things like tolerance and compassion and love.
I am not a Christian. But what do you think Christ would make of Taliban Afghanistan? You are right, he did talk to everyone, and I say talk to the Taliban, no problem. But where does the viciousness of the Taliban fit in with ” things like tolerance and compassion and love.” ?
Yeah, it is their country.
Who is the “they” in this sentence? Cause you are sure as hell not talking about anyone born female in that country when you defend the Taliban’s governance.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:22 pmThen Skeeter and Keltoi, nuke the bastards. Just don’t hit the women.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:25 pmAm I the only person here who finds it incredibly repulsive that any alleged “progressive” would speak up in favor of The Taliban?
Is there any group with values more directly opposed to progressive values than The Taliban?
January 13th, 2009 at 2:25 pmHood,
January 13th, 2009 at 2:32 pmWho here is advocating nukes?
Counter-insurgency is a different matter. Get to know the people,let them know the U.S. military will protect them, build roads and hospitals, and hopefully we will end up with a stable and secure country run by Afghanistanis.
These things take troops on the ground though, and a belief in counter-insurgency as opposed to merely the “hit and run” tactics that are in place now.
Hoodathunk Says:
Then Skeeter and Keltoi, nuke the bastards. Just don’t hit the women.
Aw, c’mon Hoodathunk, don’t be a Fred! No BS Ad Hominem dodges, please.
What is wrong with the Taliban agreeing to join the political process peacefully? They’d probably do pretty well in elections. But you can’t have a pluralistic society where one group – Taliban males – gets to completely strip another group – all other Afghans, especially women – of basic rights. Why would you defend such a thing?
January 13th, 2009 at 2:33 pmNobody is speaking in favor of the Taliban. Interesting though you are so concerned about the women of Afghanistan but don’t want to be bothered with the women in Darfur, Rwanda, the Sudan, etc. What about the women of Saudi Arabia? You don’t seem to concerned about their oppression. And the 9/11 folks including bin Laden were almost all Saudis. You don’t think the money for their mission came from there. Are we going to go rescue oppressed women where ever they are all over the globe. If we’re not than don’t pull out the we bs card like you give a cr@p.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:38 pmand Viet Nam and Korea just love us. I’m so glad gun diplomacy has worked so well. Our troops are bringing bulldozers and cement mixers to help build Afghanistan. We have such a wonderful track record that it is foolish for any country to resist.
Pass me a Coke.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:40 pmwe = women
January 13th, 2009 at 2:40 pmShayne,
Sure they are. Read Hood’s posts. He feels that we should allow the Taliban to govern as they see fit. So don’t pull this “nobody is supporting cr@p.” I’ve read the posts.
With regard to those other areas: You raise a good point. I would like to see more U.S. pressure on those countries, and I would like to see the Saudis crack down on the “religious” schools where some of the terrorists were “educated.”
But the fact that we have not invaded those countries does not mean that we should back off from our support of the current Afghanistan government.
Finally, although the Saudis do some repulsive stuff, there is no comparing the Taliban’s support of Bin Laden to the Saudis. The Saudis kicked him out, while the Taliban supported him in every possible way.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:43 pmSure like we “protected” the million dead Iraqis. And what are we going to build their roads and hospitals with, spit? Maybe, just maybe the Chinese are getting a little tire of us borrowing money and throwing at problems that guarantee we’ll never be able to pay them back. AND the problem with Afghanistan is the terrain i.e. MOUNTAINS. Building road will solve all the problems, right?
January 13th, 2009 at 2:44 pmwith the women in Darfur, Rwanda, the Sudan, etc. What about the women of Saudi Arabia?
Are you suggesting we send troops to these places, Shayne?
We are in Afghanistan now.
The proposal that Obama break his campaign promise to send more troops to Afghanistan is bad politics and bad policy.
And yes, I do give a crap about women being oppressed. But just because you can’t do everything doesn’t mean you can’t do anything.
Hoodathunk talked about Christ’s quote about walking a mile in another’s shoes. Put yourself in an Afghani woman’s shoes for a minute, Shayne. You want the West to bug out? You want the Taliban back? Honest?
January 13th, 2009 at 2:45 pmHood,
Hate to break this to you, but the fact that America may have been wrong in the past does not necessarily mean that it is wrong now. Your anti-American instincts say a lot though.
For what it is worth: At least part of Korea is doing pretty well now and if the North Koreans had won that war, I don’t think that would be the case.
I also think the UK, France, Belgium, et al. are doing pretty well now thanks to some U.S. force.
“Military force” is not inherently bad, Hood.
“U.S. military force” is not inherently bad, Hood.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:46 pmSovereignty. What a country has over its own people, good or bad. Ok, the Taliban, which last I checked didn’t have sovereignty over Afghanistan, has beliefs we find offensive. Not terribly different from those in say, Saudi Arabia. Let’s invade them.
Or maybe China? Not exactly a bastion of human rights there, gear up the forces. Israel, no, they are fighting the godless Arabs.
Boys, if we try to justify fighting everyone who doesn’t agree with us we have one hellacious list. The world doesn’t live by our rules.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:51 pmIt is my understanding that Al-Qaeda supported and funded the Taliban not the other way around. I’m sure you were supporting Bush’s war in Iraq as he prematurely pulled out of Afghanistan. I’m not saying getting rid of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban is a bad thing. But turning it into another Iraq would be a disaster.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:52 pmShayne,
Nice solution. “We should let the enemy win because we can’t afford the fight.” Some battles are worth fighting, Shayne.
You really need to do some reading on counter-insurgency.
The goal of terrorists is to provide instability.
The goal of counter-insurgency is to provide stability. When put in practice, it effectively counters terrorism. When the people can walk the streets and send their kids to school without fear of Taliban attacks, they are far more likely to cooperate to root out the terrorits. Stability is good and military force can provide it.
Regarding your terrain comment: Denver is in the mountains. Should the US just write off Denver and claim that it is ungovernable?
January 13th, 2009 at 2:52 pmSeriously, there seems to be an unrelying racism here. “Afghanistanis are ungovernable” had a really offensive sound to my ears.
Hood,
You left out “and who strongly supported people who caused about 5000 American deaths on 9/11/01 and who have vowed to continue to kill innocent Americans.”
That’s a pretty important detail to leave out.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:54 pm“I’m sure you were supporting Bush’s war in Iraq as he prematurely pulled out of Afghanistan”
Why in the world would you assume that?
January 13th, 2009 at 2:55 pmOk, you two win. Lets send more troops into Afghanistan. Can we start with you two?
January 13th, 2009 at 2:56 pmI never said Afghanistanis are ungovernable. But the long war in Afghanistan is what broke the back of the Russians. More troops in Afghanistan is a good thing if it takes the place of more random air strikes and actually targets Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But if the the insurgents decide to react like they did in Iraq with IEDs and suicide bombers that take the lives of so many innocents then what have we accomplished.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:01 pmHoodathunk Says:
Ok, you two win. Lets send more troops into Afghanistan. Can we start with you two?
“BUUZZZZZ!!!”
That is the sound of you losing the argument. They call it a False Premise. Following your logic, if we are to deploy troops anywhere in the world, whoever is President has to be the first to go. Nice try, though.
A very disappointing day at TP. We have two threads about how Bush and the media hate each other and one about a freaking TV show, and they garner more attention than what to do in Afghanistan. Very telling. Thank the Gods Obama is going to ignore the far left on this one.
Have a nice day, I’ll check in later.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:01 pmSkeeter, where’s your evidence that the Taliban supported Al Qaeda’s acts on 9/11?
January 13th, 2009 at 3:04 pm“More troops in Afghanistan is a good thing if it takes the place of more random air strikes and actually targets Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But if the the insurgents decide to react like they did in Iraq with IEDs and suicide bombers that take the lives of so many innocents then what have we accomplished.”
I’m in agreement with most of that.
The beauty of an actual counter-insurgency program is that, when properly, it should serve to counter some of those suicide bombers, etc. It had some limited success in Iraq, but the Bush team never really committed to it.
The fact that the Iraq strategy failed is more of an indictment of Bush/Rumsfeld et al. than it is an indictment of counter-insurgency as a means of providing stability.
Of course, it helps to have people speaking the language, and the Bush team seemed to do everything possible to get rid of anyone speaking the language but that’s another matter.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:08 pmNo, seriously guys, you win. Go sign up and lead the charge. The military needs dedicated Americans like you who are truly committed to their beliefs. With guys like you we could rule the world.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:08 pm“Shayne Says:
Skeeter, where’s your evidence that the Taliban supported Al Qaeda’s acts on 9/11?”
Do you really believe that it open to debate?
January 13th, 2009 at 3:08 pmOur military needs to take a sabbatical, meditate on the meaning of “defense”, then structure and train itself accordingly.
No more world policeman. The conditions of women, democracy, and “free markets” are just propaganda concerns to cover for the real purpose of war which is ALWAYS land/resource grabs.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:26 pmSkeeter, first there was no “insurgency” in Iraq before we invaded. There had been no bombings at all so we didn’t have limited success. We created the problem.
And do you have anything regarding the Taliban supporting Al Qaeda or don’t you. I guess yopu don’t.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:51 pmShayne,
Why do you continue to believe that I somehow think the war in Iraq was somehow either justified or well-executed? The fact there was no “insurgency” at the beginning is irrelevant. There sure is one now.
With regard to “limited success” — that’s pretty clear. In the areas where the U.S did try counter-insurgency, it did have some benefits.
With regard to Taliban/Al Quaeda: It seems pretty clear to me. But I’m not your clerk and I’m not going to spend my time digging up stuff on that, nor am I likely to go dig up stuff about “the sun rises in the east.”
January 13th, 2009 at 4:02 pmSo you got nothing. Thanks.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:19 pmShayne,
January 13th, 2009 at 4:38 pmI’ve also got nothing on this “sun rises in the east” thing.
I guess that concludes this fascinating discussion.
America is broke! Shut down the American War Machine. Put the war criminals, like Bush and Cheney in jail.
January 13th, 2009 at 6:51 pmLess than nothing.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:15 pmI just came back from there a few months ago. Those folks need all the help they can get.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:02 am