This is my immediate, if not very intelligent, response ot Barack Obama's speech for the "Temporary Surge" which includes sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.
I think the President's heart is in the right place, I don't believe he is a warmonger, or has any interest other than the best possible outcome to a bad situation.
It's a military expedient to withdraw from a position of strength, not weakness, or you invite disaster. We made an expedient withdraw from Saigon in 1975 and millions of Vietnamese paid the price in bloodshed. That's what Afghanistan faces with an immediate withdrawel from the country. Also America's legitimacy would take a huge blow. It's like a fireman coming to a house and seeing a very difficult blaze, meeting the owner at the door - "Tough fire man, gotta go" -
Owner: "Do I even get a garden hose?"
Fireman: "Sorry, no".
The president's endgame in Afghanistan may be similar to a fireman offering a homeowner a garden hose, but at least it's a garden hose.
Steve, as I said in my post...that was my not very intelligent reaction to the speech. I have followed the the Afghan situation for decades, from the Soviet Occupation, The War By the Northern Alliance which was aided by the Americans covertly...and included the massive aid given to The Taleban and Al Quaeda to defeat the Soviets... The power vacuum which was quickly exploited by the Taleban and the tragic abandonment of the Northern Alliance by the Bush regime shortly before Sept. 11th. Then of course the Bush regime reaction to Sept 11th...Bush adopting his lame cowboy western approach to diplomacy....and the ensuing mismanaged, innapropriate response which was totally botched from beginning to the whimpering end... Did I fail to mention the connection with George Bush's Arbusto Oil Comapny and the Taleban? Or the last minute threats in a conference in Berlin in early 2001 where the Americans told the Taleban, play ball with us over the proposed pipeline through your country or face the consequences... In my judgement, George Bush Ate the Fucking consequencesa! But, no matter.... The botched affair was abandoned and left for the next president to deal with...all the better it was a democrat, so the onus of responsiblity could be shifted through spin and insane rhetoric and manipultion of public opinion to him.... Bottom line, I agree with and support Obama up to a point and I think it is too easy to cast damning judgement..."This Isn't Change!...etc..." because it isn't the outcome of simple reality we would have hoped for. Yes, I am willing to hope and pray that he can see his way clear here and do what the Soviets were unable to, the Bush regime didn't have the balls or the vision to dream of... I hope he can cut out the asshole crimianl Karzei clan and let the Afghan people have their way with this clique of thieving jackals...
Steve: The situation is nothing like Cambodia. The Taliban are not liked in Afghanistan but they are still seen as Afghanis. It's for them to sort out. They are a minority there. Their philosophy is detestable but no different than what we see in Saudi or many other places where we aid and abet. The invasion was wrong from the outset -- morally, legally and even in terms of narrow US national interest, even more so now with the economic crisis. If the principle is that it is OK to invade countries that harbor terrorists then South Boston could be invaded by the UK (IRA), Florida by the Cubans, Montana by the rest of us (the militia) and Iraqis would have every right to attack the US for our unprovoked attack on them. This is not a defense of any of those regimes but a question about the principle. No Afghanis attacked us on 9/11, only Saudis. Under that principle the only thing that prevents us from being attacked is that we are stronger than the UK, Cuba, Montana and Iraq. If that's your principle -- Might makes Right -- then it is not legitimate in my eyes.
I'm listening to the Sabbath right now. That's always a deep pleasure, it comes from a place deep in my brain.
I officially resign from the Obama fan club. His speech and the announcement it contained, as expected as it was, proved to me he's just another puppet dancing to the tune of the Military Industrial Complex. Those are the guys running the world and poor Obama doesn't have the balls to oppose them. In all fairness, perhaps no one could. It's sad business.
Great points md and revere. I heard a similar arguement on NPR this morning that millions of people have been killed in African conflicts such as the Congo and Ivory Coast, yet the US has no responsibility toward intervening in those instances, so why should we intervene on behalf of Afghanis vis a vis the Taliban? It's a good question. I suppose the only valid arguement I can think of is that we crashed their china shop and so now we have somewhat of a responsibility to at least try to do them some justice.
I think that Pres Obama's focus on Afghanistan is grounded in humanitarian and ethical arguements. I don't think those type of arguements would have factored into a McCain decision. I think he would probably have "stayed the course" in Afghanistan. Maybe even exacerbating the situation there by loosening rules of engagement. But McCain would probably have focused exclusively on Iraq/Iran. We probably would be months into a bombing campaign into Iran.
Steve, I absolutely support and want to draw more attention to your comment about McCain...Of course the evil genie in my head takes it a step further and would like to know if he would have even survived his first year in office...and would we be stuck with a Plalinocracy now and how would we be faring if the real crazies who are pulling her strings had power?
I am going to publish a piece that Rever posted on his blog effectmeasure...I recommend his blog highly.
9 comments:
Rather than listening to Black Sabbath, if you don't mind, I'll assume that the title is a sufficient statement of your position.
I think the President's heart is in the right place, I don't believe he is a warmonger, or has any interest other than the best possible outcome to a bad situation.
It's a military expedient to withdraw from a position of strength, not weakness, or you invite disaster. We made an expedient withdraw from Saigon in 1975 and millions of Vietnamese paid the price in bloodshed. That's what Afghanistan faces with an immediate withdrawel from the country. Also America's legitimacy would take a huge blow. It's like a fireman coming to a house and seeing a very difficult blaze, meeting the owner at the door - "Tough fire man, gotta go" -
Owner: "Do I even get a garden hose?"
Fireman: "Sorry, no".
The president's endgame in Afghanistan may be similar to a fireman offering a homeowner a garden hose, but at least it's a garden hose.
Steve, as I said in my post...that was my not very intelligent reaction to the speech.
I have followed the the Afghan situation for decades, from the Soviet Occupation, The War By the Northern Alliance which was aided by the Americans covertly...and included the massive aid given to The Taleban and Al Quaeda to defeat the Soviets...
The power vacuum which was quickly exploited by the Taleban and the tragic abandonment of the Northern Alliance by the Bush regime shortly before Sept. 11th.
Then of course the Bush regime reaction to Sept 11th...Bush adopting his lame cowboy western approach to diplomacy....and the ensuing mismanaged, innapropriate response which was totally botched from beginning to the whimpering end...
Did I fail to mention the connection with George Bush's Arbusto Oil Comapny and the Taleban? Or the last minute threats in a conference in Berlin in early 2001 where the Americans told the Taleban, play ball with us over the proposed pipeline through your country or face the consequences...
In my judgement, George Bush Ate the Fucking consequencesa!
But, no matter....
The botched affair was abandoned and left for the next president to deal with...all the better it was a democrat, so the onus of responsiblity could be shifted through spin and insane rhetoric and manipultion of public opinion to him....
Bottom line, I agree with and support Obama up to a point and I think it is too easy to cast damning judgement..."This Isn't Change!...etc..." because it isn't the outcome of simple reality we would have hoped for.
Yes, I am willing to hope and pray that he can see his way clear here and do what the Soviets were unable to, the Bush regime didn't have the balls or the vision to dream of...
I hope he can cut out the asshole crimianl Karzei clan and let the Afghan people have their way with this clique of thieving jackals...
I hope we can get out of this fast...amen
Steve: The situation is nothing like Cambodia. The Taliban are not liked in Afghanistan but they are still seen as Afghanis. It's for them to sort out. They are a minority there. Their philosophy is detestable but no different than what we see in Saudi or many other places where we aid and abet. The invasion was wrong from the outset -- morally, legally and even in terms of narrow US national interest, even more so now with the economic crisis. If the principle is that it is OK to invade countries that harbor terrorists then South Boston could be invaded by the UK (IRA), Florida by the Cubans, Montana by the rest of us (the militia) and Iraqis would have every right to attack the US for our unprovoked attack on them. This is not a defense of any of those regimes but a question about the principle. No Afghanis attacked us on 9/11, only Saudis. Under that principle the only thing that prevents us from being attacked is that we are stronger than the UK, Cuba, Montana and Iraq. If that's your principle -- Might makes Right -- then it is not legitimate in my eyes.
Now for the 43 Trillion Dollar Question....
What would a President McCain have done?
I'm listening to the Sabbath right now. That's always a deep pleasure, it comes from a place deep in my brain.
I officially resign from the Obama fan club. His speech and the announcement it contained, as expected as it was, proved to me he's just another puppet dancing to the tune of the Military Industrial Complex. Those are the guys running the world and poor Obama doesn't have the balls to oppose them. In all fairness, perhaps no one could. It's sad business.
Great points md and revere. I heard a similar arguement on NPR this morning that millions of people have been killed in African conflicts such as the Congo and Ivory Coast, yet the US has no responsibility toward intervening in those instances, so why should we intervene on behalf of Afghanis vis a vis the Taliban? It's a good question. I suppose the only valid arguement I can think of is that we crashed their china shop and so now we have somewhat of a responsibility to at least try to do them some justice.
I think that Pres Obama's focus on Afghanistan is grounded in humanitarian and ethical arguements. I don't think those type of arguements would have factored into a McCain decision. I think he would probably have "stayed the course" in Afghanistan. Maybe even exacerbating the situation there by loosening rules of engagement. But McCain would probably have focused exclusively on Iraq/Iran. We probably would be months into a bombing campaign into Iran.
Steve, I absolutely support and want to draw more attention to your comment about McCain...Of course the evil genie in my head takes it a step further and would like to know if he would have even survived his first year in office...and would we be stuck with a Plalinocracy now and how would we be faring if the real crazies who are pulling her strings had power?
I am going to publish a piece that Rever posted on his blog effectmeasure...I recommend his blog highly.
Post a Comment