I get emails.
Martin,
I wanted to take a moment to share my thoughts on President Obama’s plan for Afghanistan with you. I do not support the president’s decision to send additional troops to fight a war in Afghanistan that is no longer in our national security interest. It’s an expensive gamble to undertake armed nation-building on behalf of a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy. Sending more troops could further destabilize Afghanistan and, more importantly, Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state where al Qaeda is headquartered. While I appreciate that the president made clear we won’t be in Afghanistan forever, I am disappointed by his decision not to offer a timetable for ending our military presence there. I will work with members of both parties and both houses of Congress to push for a flexible timetable to reduce our troop levels in Afghanistan, as part of a comprehensive strategy to combat al Qaeda in the region and around the world.
I will continue to speak out in favor of a flexible timetable for withdrawal, and I’m counting on you to help spread the word. If you haven’t already done so, please take a moment and sign my petition supporting a flexible timetable for withdrawal. I’ll keep you updated on the next steps, and what you can do to make sure our message is heard.
Sincerely,
Russ Feingold
United States Senator
Maybe McCain and Feingold can get together and decide whether the president’s plan sucks because it has a timeline or because it doesn’t.
How are you digesting the speech and policy?
well, I’m not surprised but I’m certainly disgusted.
what’s particularly upsetting is that real healthcare reform is always too expensive, why single payer will bankrupt the country doncha know, but we can always find money to blow people up.
fuck it, i don’t even care anymore.
Our ruling elites can not come up with 100-150 billion to cover all Americans’ Health Care that will save money and lives but will drop trillions to play war games that kill people.
American’s view on humanity is very sick and twisted.
you know, I don’t know if I am more frustrated by the complexity of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan and my pessimism about our ability to succeed in our mission there, or I am more frustrated by the debate about it I am reading online.
We are not doing this to kill people. We are doing it because a year ago Pakistani Taliban were in control of the Swat Valley 60 miles from Islamabad, because Mumbai was brutally attacked raising the specter of another Indo-Pakistani war, because the government of Pakistani is rickety, and barracks in the capital have taken over briefly by insurgents, because the government in Afghanistan is losing ground and legitimacy to a cruel opposition, and because we are concerned that a withdrawal could fuel a growth in the power of these radicals leading to an increase in the risk to ourselves and of nuclear war or the loss of control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
Now, we can disagree about the degree of threat, what will increase it and lessen it, whether this plan will help, hurt, or simply fail. But we owe it to ourselves to be honest about what’s at stake. This isn’t war for war’s sake.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I ask again, why are we at war in AFGHANISTAN if the target is PAKISTAN?
You shouldn’t think of them as distinct countries. The border is a hypothetical line in some of the highest mountains in the world. The area along the border is not controlled from Kabul or Islamabad and never has been. If people want to stay there, there’s nothing we can do about it. But if they want to move out of that area and take over places like the resort-heavy Swat Valley, then we’re talking about the potential for taking over the whole country. These groups thrive on their successes on both sides of the border, so the Obama administration’s strategy is to work the Afghan side while the Pakistanis work their own side. In the past, Pakistan has been more interested in building these groups up to use them as a proxy against India. But they lost control of them and are now having a civil war of their own.
I’m not saying that we have the strategy right. I am saying that we aren’t doing this for shits and giggles, or to enrich the M/I complex.
No one I’ve seen has suggested we’re doing this for “shits and giggles.” And innocent civilians ARE being killed in this process, so the concerns expressed are valid.
I heard the president’s explanation and yours. I’m just not buying either one. I submit it’s about establishing a permanent presence there, despite the President’s best intentions. And I think there are those that will continue to find excuses to keep us there, no matter what he says. I pray I am wrong. But historically, the only time engagements like this have ended is after massive losses on our side and massive protests from the public.
Booman
Did India ask the US to escalate in Afghanistan because of Mumbai?
Methinks you are making this up. Very few peoples actually want the US invading their region – perhaps some in the ruling elite do – but generally, the US leaves a trail of devastation, and little democracy in its wake.
There are serious problems with the “US as liberator of the world” self image that even US progressives seem to share…
yes, there are serious problems with our self-image. I wrote about that last night.
The Pakistanis believe that India will fill the vacuum if we leave Afghanistan. I think that that fear has actually helped improve cooperation, making the Obama Plan plausible (at least on the surface).
Did you notice who just had a state dinner in Washington?
Booman Tribune ~ Comments ~ Timeline, No Timeline
India wants to get mixed up in Afghanistan? I very much doubt anyone other than the US wants to be there. Perhaps it suits India for Pakistan to be distracted on its western flank, but I know of no evidence that India has been stirring things up or getting involved with Taliban/Al Qaeda as a means of distracting Pakistan from Kasmir.
I am well aware of India’s concerns – Yahoo! News
But that is about India being concerned at the US destabilising the delicate regional balance between India, China and Pakistan in Kashmir and has nothing to do with Afghanistan.
Think about it differently.
Afghan Journal » Blog Archive » Keeping India out of Afghanistan | Blogs |
Exporting some cuisine and moview to Afghanistan is hardly the same thing as aiding and abetting the Taliban or seeking to undermine Pakistan security. India, China and Pakistan are regional rivals, and India is naturally concerned that Obama’s great need for Pakistani help in making his Afghan strategy work (and for China to continue to fund it) will tilt the USA dramatically in favour of its rivals, China and Pakistan. Hence the great show of esteem for India whilst the Billions of military aid go to Pakistan…
Frank, you are not getting it:
Oh I get it all right. The US supports terrorist regimes – as in the Pakistani Government and its complicity in acts of terrorism against India – but India has been remarkably restrained in its response and has not sought to exploit Pakistan’s exposure to the Taliban by providing support to the Taliban.
.
Hey, I must be missing some pieces here. I don’t recall any of these motives were on the table when the President and Congress decided to go after Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Did something go haywire whilst our occupying forces stayed on foreign soil?
Bush’s Deck of Cards – focusing on Iraq for 9/11 terror attack
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I’d say so, yes.
It’s about Pakistan, which does have nuclear weapons – Benazir Bhutto happened, Mumbai happened.
.
for Pakistan: assassinations – attempts – suicide bomings – terror attacks – terror groups.
Some on the list for domestic and across border violence in Kashmir:
Proscribed Terrorist/Extremist Groups
Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (HM)
Harkat-ul-Ansar (HuA, presently known as Harkat-ul Mujahideen)
Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT)
Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM)
Harkat-ul Mujahideen (HuM, previously known as Harkat-ul-Ansar)
Al Badr
Jamiat-ul-Mujahideen (JUM)
Harkat-ul-Jehad-al-Islami
Al Umar Mujahideen
Dukhtaran-e-Millat (DeM)
Front Organisations of Terrorist Groups Active in Jammu and Kashmir
Active Terrorist/Insurgent Groups:
Lashkar-e-Omar (LeO)
Lashkar-e-Jabbar (LeJ)
Tehrik-ul-Mujahideen
Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF)
All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC)
Mutahida Jehad Council (MJC)
See my diary – Obama Policy and Af-Pak Border Fallacy
Simple advice: set your immediate target and get out. Leave the terror groups to the Pakistani and its domestic civil/religious strife. This violence has been going on for decades.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Evidently that’s Obama’s plan – set immediate target and get out. Pakistan’s civil/ religious strife is not domestic, that’s the problem. Pakistan announced successful nuclear tests in 1998. Benezir Bhutto is a prominent post-nuclear assassination.
Unleashing drones that kill innocent civilians is not considered a war game?
Do you truly believe that there is a military solution to these conflicts? 100,000 thousand christian troops are really going to provide security to the whole region?
The domino theory is now replaced by the Taliban or the bad guys might get Pakistan’s nukes and blow up India and the whole world. On and On it goes forever and ever. The justification for constant and perpetual American military aggression never ends even in the face of domestic economic despair of historic proportions.
I suggest some of these advocates for more war come to DC and visit the Walter Reed hospital or attend a military funeral that happen almost daily at Arlington Cemetery. The complete devastation of these young lives and the pain of their family members is an overwhelming emotional experience.
I ask myself why these American people continue to die and I can never come up with any real answers.
This is another annoying critique. What is the point of a drone? It is so that you actually have an eyeball on the target before you lob munitions at it. Instead of blasting a village with tomahawks, you blast the one house you want to blow up in that village with a drone. Drones are designed to prevent or at least minimize the killing of innocents.
The controversy of drones should be centered on the legality of their use against non-regular armed forces, and their use in countries with whom we are not at war. But as a tool, they’re an improvement over the alternatives.
I agree there is no legitimate legal war authority to use drones in Pakistan but it does not seem to stop them.
I didn’t say that. I said it was controversial.
How does that apply to people who are the Pakistan side of a mountain? How does it apply to some sheikh who is driving his car in Yemen? How is the determination made that such a strike will prevent future terrorist attacks?
But, it’s not plainly illegal. Congress passed a law authorizing this. Under international law, it is certainly less clear. I would remind you, however, that our drone bases are in Pakistan with the tacit support of the government there, so the invasion of sovereignty argument (in Pakistan, at least) is a joke.
Does America have to actually show proof that their targets had something to do with 9/11? Who do they show this proof to?
They show it to themselves. There is a process for each drone attack. I think the New Yorker did a massive piece on it not too long ago.
The problem is not the goal and design of the drone. The problem is that it isn’t nearly so accurate as you or anyone else would suggest. Yes, they’re DESIGNED to minimize civilian deaths. But in REALITY, they haven’t proven a great ability to do so, in part because they don’t always work that well, and in part because our intelligence sometimes gets it wrong.
And I think it’s worth continuing to ask why killing, whether by people or drones, is the right approach, or whether there are other methods that might prove more successful in the long run.
Killing to achieve one’s goals, here in the 21st century, seems a most barbaric tactic, one unworthy of a country that wants to lead the world with moral authority.
Couldn’t agree more. The drones are just a more robotic form of bombing Vietnam villages from above the clouds. You’ve asked the real question that never gets asked among the pols and the media.
i don’t think it’s for shits and giggles either. I’m just making the accurate observation that there is always money for wars, and that funding is always rationalized in some way or the other.
There is never money for social programs, which are always cut cut cut. Even health care reform has been cut cut cut until it doesn’t look like anything resembling reform.
i supported the original invasion. I don’t support this. we have enough problems at home.
I usually appreciate your measured analysis Booman, but this is a rather silly medley of facts which hardly adds up to the OMG WMD! argument. And you can hardly blame people for being skeptical of the WMD scare, given it’s eternally tarnished history. Skepticism on this front is simply a matter of being minimally informed about the recent actions of America and it’s professed justifications.
I don’t have to agree with you at all about what’s at stake in order to be “honest”. The basic problem with the WMD scare is that to whatever extent the nukes are not secure (which has not been demonstrated), it hasn’t been shown that America’s presence in Afghanistan does anything to increase their security. Recent history suggests precisely the opposite: that the american presence in the region has progressively destabilized the region.
I would also ask, why, if there is genuine concern about WMD and not simply an amorphous desire to “disrupt” the taliban or Al qeada or whoever the designated boogeyman is, why aren’t other countries equally invested in this enterprise? Wouldn’t a loose WMD be dangerous for any number of middle-eastern or European countries? And finally, if we really are talking about the danger of a loose nuke, why would Obama send only 30,000 troops for 18 months? The abject, ongoing failure of american forces there in suppressing or disrupting the continuing presence of the taliban argues a far larger commitment of resources and time if we are really talking about eliminating such a dire threat. Basically these arguments don’t add up to anything convincing, which leaves the far more persuasive argument that this is american imperial business as usual.
Equally invested? I don’t know any other countries that are capable of being equally invested, but the ISAF is a diverse group, made up of dozens of nations making some level of investment.
I don’t want it to sound like I am endorsing this plan, but I am willing to take it seriously and not engage in simplistic analysis. The stability of Pakistan is a major concern for everyone because they have been at war with India three times since their creation, and any fourth conflict could go nuclear. That is a different bowl of soup from worrying about some mustard gas and anthrax in Iraq.
I think that’s misdirected. Either this military action really protects American/global security or it doesn’t. If it does, we’d be fools not to spend whatever is necessary to make it so. If it doesn’t, it’s dead wrong whether it costs 10 bucks or 10 trillion.
I’m sure you know that the budget argument is always just bullshit designed to advance or prevent what its users want. We have plenty of money in our economy to do pretty much whatever we want — it’s really just a question of how we finance it. War is always near-impossible to fight against once it’s started because we can’t send “the troops” to death and injury and then admit that they died/suffered for a lie. It’s a win-win for the military-corporate complex. Using our economic power for the direct benefit of Americans is a much harder sell in this culture because we are not grownups.
Some event on the “ground” will take place that forces President to stay in Afghanistan much longer than 2011 and Generals will leak their desire to stay longer, which Republicans will use to attack the President.
Or Republicans will attack President for not leaving but their love for endless war is too deep to believe that more effective outcome.
Professor Cole is pretty good today with these reads.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/12/01/afghanistan_surge/index.html
http://www.juancole.com/2009/12/top-ten-things-that-could-derail-obamas.html
Exactly. Some “Gulf of Tonkin” type stunt can be arranged. That’s a big worry.
I’ve always liked Feingold, and I liked him because of his black and white perspective of our system of laws. But it’s interesting what happens to a black and white guy when he’s faced with a dilema that doesn’t have a black or a white set of solutions anywhere to be seen.
Last night I was struck by Obama’s facial muscles working as he gave the address, they just screamed, “I hate ths I hate this”
Yep. He may have made the only deal he could, given the lack of power any president really has. Or he could have risked death and told the people what was really up. I can’t really blame him for his choice. But that’s why I would never try to be president. It was the wrong choice, even so.
You’re on a first name basis with Russ Feingold? And you still choose to spend time here with us?
Not really. Although I once sat down with Feingold for a chat. It was me, Russ, Chris Bowers, and Susie Madrak. He’s shorter than you might think. Nice guy, whose opinion I respect a lot.
Most famous people are a lot shorter than you would think.
Sullivan/theAtlantic on Fred Kaplan’s The ‘Begin’ Loophole:
Digesting the speech + policy? Somewhat, but at this point it’s just something to be filed with the others until it can be compared to actions on the ground. In the end ‘success’ means our people are back home, and Afghans are able to walk their children to school, flush a toilet, turn on a light, and play some righteous tunes on the radio without fear of getting blown up.
You mean that withdrawal has to wait until Afghanistan is more American than America itself?
I wouldn’t wish ‘American’ on any culture other than ours, and that only with severe reservations. My comment simply reflects the reality of the Country just prior to Bush declaring ‘mission accomplished’ and leaving for Iraq.
Feingold seems to be complaining that there is no time table for complete withdrawal, while McCain is complaining that there is a time table for the initial withdrawal.
This is a better explanation for our presence there than any others I’ve heard. And it’s probably the real one, sad to say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnFlsjhpGfw
(Embedding disabled for that or I’d post here. See it quick, before it disappears.)
Where is “there”? Afghanistan, although surveyed last year by the USGS has no provable and only a few likely oil reserves.
There are two pipeline deals in the works with Turkmenistan, which wants to break free of Russia’s control of its oil. The first is with China. The logical route to China can bypass Afghanistan or runs through the part of Afghanistan controlled by the Northern Alliance. The second is a deal with Iran. It makes more sense to construct a pipeline through Iran to the Arabian Sea should Iran want to export Turkmen oil and gas to, say India, Bangladesh, Burma.
Stone’s imagining of Cheney’s mindset does not even recognize Afghanistan; it’s all Iraq and Iran.
It is not in the US interest to remain in Afghanistan any longer than we have to.
People want to transport goods across Afghanistan – not just oil. There are many reasons why Afghanistan, like Israel, are strategically placed and therefore important, despite the lack of natural resources.
It would help to have a physical geography map of Afghanistan. Central location means little if you have mountains to go over. There are much cheaper ways of transporting goods by bypassing the mountains of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is strategically placed like Switzerland is strategically placed. And more likely not to be an imperial prize as a result.
There is very little economic benefit that the US would gain from a permanent occupation of Afghanistan.
It used to be that he who controlled the Hindu Kush controlled the overland trade between India and Eastern Europe. The British never got any benefit from their excursion into Afghanistan.
The Soviet Union invaded for security reasons; Afghanistan was experiencing a civil war and it was on the border of the Uzbek, Turkmen, Tajik, and Kyrgyz Soviet Socialist Republics, then a part of the Soviet Union. For them it was like us having to deal with a civil war in Mexico.
The wingers missed the human right declaration made by Obama. That’s the cornerstone of his foreign policy.
Russ Feingold does not like Obama and his view could be shaded by that.
The wingers scream about the KSM trial in NYC. They scream about detainees coming to the US. They were screaming about the war on terror.
So, why are they in denial of the danger in the Af/Pk region? It is as if the violent extremists went away.
Obama looks down the road twenty or so years.
McCain is blathering on about the enemy knowing when we are leaving and oh, noes!
Why weren’t these screamers yelling about Afghanistan when Bush was president?
Why weren’t the screamers yelling about Afghanistan when Bush was president?
With the GOP it is all about the politics of looking tough and manly (yeah, all those draft dodgers). Manliness appeals to their white male base. They could care squat about national security, except maybe for Lugar.
Many of us were.
I have this muddled opinion.
I supported going in at the beginning. Opposed Iraq.
Felt Bush screwed Afghansitan and made Pakistan destable.
And screwed us by letting Bin Laden go in Tora Bora.
I have doubts about continuing in Afghan. but, I do believe in giving the president the chance to take a mop to the place. I don’t think he would be able to feel at peace without trying.
I understand this.
We will see.
And the cadets didn’t look real enthralled either. Some of them didn’t even clap. Could be they’ve figured out what a dumbass stupid war this is and many of them will probably die over there for what?
“For What?” is the correct question and it appears the answer from the hawkish wing of the Dem party is to stop the bad guys from getting Pakistan’s nukes. When will we “know” their nukes are safe for eternity? My guess is once they are labeled “safe” then their will be another justification for not leaving and continue to be a “residual” force. The President did leave himself some wiggle room by saying the forces will begin to be leaving in 2011 so I am sure there will be some semantic argument for keeping troops there. I have already prepared myself for America to have large numbers of forces at the 1/2 billion dollar Embassy in Iraq forever.
I have yet to see how many American lives war supporters think continuing this mission is worth aside from the usual default “whatever it takes.” My fiance’s brother is about to be deployed to Afghanistan in a few months and the anxiety amongst the family is piercing. They are all conservatives and look down upon my pacifistic liberalism but I am equally scared for his safety. Any unfortunate incident. (knock on wood) would have a terrifying impact on everyone. I censor information from her because she can not handle thinking about it. My argument for non violent solutions have a personal reason as well.
This is an inherited cluster fuck that has a chance to ruin BHO’s presidency and destroy his Democratic base but more importantly and unfortunately, the blood of the future dead are now on his hands.
I just find this unacceptable.
In retrospect, there was really no suspense over what Obama would do. Once McChrystal blabbed about what he declared was needed, it should have been clear that either Obama had given him the green light to start the softening of public opinion, or that Obama had allowed himself to be boxed into a corner where anything less than the McChrystal prescription would be attacked from the “mainstream” as not “supporting the troops”. If Obama had intended any other course he would have fired McChrystal on the spot.
The Obama speech was as expected on many levels: outstanding speechmaking, no real details, holding up high ideals for America without showing us how to get there. I can’t pretend to know better than Obama what needs to be done on the ground. I do believe he’s doing what he thinks is necessary, given the bucket of stupid-treacherous soup he inherited. The military response to Sept 11 was just wrong and far worse than useless. But what does the president who follows do about it? Just back off and declare all those lives wasted for nothing? Or continue it long enough to salvage some degree of security and hope for more peace? All I know is, I wouldn’t want to be him, and I’m glad it’s him and not anybody else I can think of.
His comparison with Vietnam seems to have some validity. I hope he’s right. But what I wanted was a political impossibility: giving the lie to pretty much everything said and done following Sept 11. Recognizing that our goals and our security are not met by any kind of global war, but are diminished by it. But Obama listened to the generals and the militarists as presidents always do, always did. That he failed to do the radical superhuman thing should not come as a surprise, but is nevertheless a stunning disappointment for all who hoped to see a sustainable ending to the American Century.
Well said, Dave. You more or less hit anything that I would have posted in this response. I was hoping for more details in the speech, though. I knew it wouldn’t be as detailed as I’d like, but I figured it’d be more detailed than what he gave.
Also received that email from Russ and was very disappointed. It would be dangerous and irresponsible to let Pakistan become a failed state though it seems clear Obama would much prefer to be building the domestic economy (science and energy sustainability) here in the usa. His part 2 – agriculture, etc in Afganistan, could be very good. I’m heartened by his points on Pakistan.
In less than a year we have gone from Hope to despair. Obama has gone from a rock to a hard place. Damned if you do or don’t, double damned if you try to do both. What is a President to do??