Journal Updates 05 October 2009

Posted: Oct 4 2009, 09:15 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,928 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	Crossroads in Afghanistan [Augusta Chronicle editorial] Sunday 04 October 2009 This whole mess should stop -- NOW! Pull the plug, bring the troops home, and lick our wounds. OBL will eventually surface, and the CIA or some other network will kill him. Did we not learn our lesson in Vietnam? The Afghanistan people will NEVER give up, and they will wear us down piecemeal until we have no other choice but to retreat. Why not now? I hate to make my views sound so simple, but they are. Get out! NOW! Posted by avidreader on Sun Oct 4, 2009 9:16 AM avidreader is absolutely correct. The U.S./NATO mission is doomed because of demographics, geography, resources & historical imperatives. There is no basis in reality to believe that U.S. strategy was wrong for 8 years but now the military suddenly has got it right. The surge did NOT work in Iraq, robbie. Bush basically kicked the can down the road & left the tough decision to the next administration(s). Buying off Sunni insurgents was a short term tactic. Revenge has already begun in Anbar province against those who "sold out to the Americans". Odierno knows he cannot significant or rapidly draw down U.S. troops in Iraq & expect the fragile status quo to hold. Therefore Odierno speaks about a long term "partnership" with the U.S.-backed Iraq gov't meaning all U.S. combat troops will NOT be out of Iraq by 2011 or 2012, and the U.S. military must maintain a permanent presence in Iraq for the indefinite future. Some "success"! And if you think Iraq was tough then Afghanistan makes it look like child's play. The tribal people of Afghanistan are fierce, Afghanistan is rugged, remote, rural, undeveloped, uneducated, lacks resources to pay for a large army & has NEVER been conquered. Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sun Oct 4, 2009 9:58 AM -------------------- Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then, will you realize that money cannot be eaten!!! (Cree Indian Prophecy)
IP: ----------

synergy	Posted: Oct 4 2009, 10:09 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,928 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	AC 2009-10-04 The U.S. war in Afghanistan is a POLITICAL war. The Taliban gov't of Afghanistan was guilty of harboring Al Qaeda's leaders & hosting Al Qaeda training camps. There is no evidence AFAIK that the Taliban knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks. United States had & still has the right to pursue those DIRECTLY responsible for the 9/11 & other terrorist attacks. United States had the right to overthrow the Taliban gov't of Afghanistan while in hot pursuit of Al Qaeda's leaders (still not apprehended) & destroying Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan (mission accomplished). United States does NOT have the right to militarily occupy Afghanistan & wage war there for 8 years. The Taliban is resurgent b/c the Americans are seen by ordinary Afghans as an occupying not a liberating force. The Taliban is a local phenomenon consisting mainly of Pashtuns in Afghanistan & Pakistan & groups allied in common cause against the occupation. The Taliban is not an international jihaddist movement bent on world domination. United States has no interest in Afghanistan beyond making sure that Al Qaeda camps do not get reestablished. It does not take an occupying army to guarantee that outcome. U.S. out NOW! Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sun Oct 4, 2009 10:48 AM Anybody who thinks United States military has enough bombs short of nuclear weapons to "wipe out Afghanistan in a few hours on a Sunday afternoon with a 19 year old enlisted guy, drinking soda, eating Cheetos & pushing the buttons in Tampa" is a BLITHERING IDIOT as Riverman1 demonstrates daily. United States is going to blow up or "wipe out" 31 million Afghans for what? How is United States going to "wipe out" this ancient, rugged, mountainous country approximately the size of Texas? Riverman, how is United States going to deal with Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan & other potentially troubling adversary that resists a U.S. occupation lasting 8 years? Kick a**, cowboy diplomacy did not work so well for George W. Bush. Maybe you haven't had enough but British & American forces are getting a belly full in Afghanistan. 8 American troops were killed today, Genius. More & more Afghans are adopting your doctrine, Riverman, that attacks by a foreign invader cannot be allowed to go without retribution. The misguided U.S. global war on terror in Afghanistan has helped destabilize Pakistan & every Central Asia state surrounding Afghanistan. Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sun Oct 4, 2009 11:06 AM -------------------- Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then, will you realize that money cannot be eaten!!! (Cree Indian Prophecy)
IP: ----------

synergy	Posted: Oct 4 2009, 11:13 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,928 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	AC 2009-10-04 The reactionary right always must have a scapegoat for failed wars. In Vietnam it was the press, Congress & dirty effing hippies who got blamed for "losing" that neocolonial war that a consensus of historians now say was unnecessary. Millions of people around the world marched in protest before the U.S. invaded Iraq. I knew Saddam did not have any WMDs - maybe some crude chemical arms leftover from the Iran-Iraq war which did not threaten us in any way, but which Bush would have used to justify the war he waged using cooked intelligence. None was ever found, so the entire war in Iraq is based on a lie. How do you "win" under those circumstances? I knew during the campaign that Obama was making a mistake by referring to Afghanistan as "the good war". United States had the right to invade Afghanistan in hot pursuit of Al Qaeda, but the U.S. does not have the right to occupy Afghanistan & wage war there for 8 years. I went publicly on the record in Oct 2005 opposing the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Grasshopper, you should look to the lying, incompetent American Establishment as the reason this country lost Vietnam, failed to learn its lesson & repeated the mistake in Iraq & Afghanistan. Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sun Oct 4, 2009 12:06 PM -------------------- Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then, will you realize that money cannot be eaten!!! (Cree Indian Prophecy)
IP: ----------

synergy	Posted: Oct 4 2009, 12:01 PM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,928 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	AC 2009-10-04 You wrote, Riverman, "we could wipe out Afghanistan in a few hours on a Sunday afternoon with a 19 year old enlisted guy, drinking soda, eating Cheetos & pushing the buttons in Tampa." You refined that to "wiping out" every "Taliban" village, town & city. Horse manure! The U.S. military CANNOT do that. Not on a Sunday afternoon, not after 8 years, not ever, and it isn't because the U.S. military "has its hands tied". Maybe Obama should go to Congress, urge them to declare war or fuggedaboutit. Truth is United States does not have justification for waging total war in Afghanistan. What about that Hamburg cell? You gonna "wipe out" Hamburg? How about the terrorist in Denver? You gonna "wipe out" Denver? Are you going to "wipe out" Pakistan for harboring terrorists? Saudi Arabia? Somalia? Yemen? Algeria? Morocco? Lebanon? The Philippines? Terrorism has never been an threat to the existence of United States. It is a nuisance not an existential threat. It should be dealt with through police actions, international cooperation, international intelligence, etc. & not through the U.S. military occupying Iraq, Afghanistan & waging endless air strikes in Pakistan, Somalia & elsewhere. Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sun Oct 4, 2009 12:57 PM -------------------- Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then, will you realize that money cannot be eaten!!! (Cree Indian Prophecy)
IP: ----------

synergy	Posted: Oct 4 2009, 03:00 PM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,928 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	Zbig is wrong if he thinks United States should "engage" militarily in Afghanistan. That is a Rx for endless war not reconstruction. United States should engage politically, diplomatically, and economically, but not militarily beyond making sure no Al Qaeda camps are reestablished in Afghanistan. Zbig is part of the elite status quo American Establishment. United States cannot win playing Big Power "politics" which includes the projection of U.S. military power in an effort at domination. China, Russia, every regional nation, all have political interests in Afghanistan, but the sovereign interest of Afghans should be who is placed first - not American interests per se. A Voice Worth Heeding on Afghanistan QUOTE The New York Times October 5, 2009 Letter From Washington A Voice Worth Heeding on Afghanistan By ALBERT R. HUNT WASHINGTON — Zbigniew Brzezinski says that a central consideration for President Barack Obama, as he faces an agonizing choice over Afghanistan, is what happened to the Russians in the 1980s and after they were driven out in 1989. Mr. Brzezinski’s views deserve attention. Few policy makers have studied Afghanistan as long; he was President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser during the Soviet invasion of 1979. He has Mr. Obama’s interests at heart — he was a prominent supporter during the presidential campaign — and is the most respected Democratic geopolitical thinker outside the administration. Thirty years ago, after initial concerns that the Russians would succeed in Afghanistan, it became clear to Mr. Brzezinski that once they were viewed as “occupiers,” they would be thwarted and eventually driven out. He doesn’t want Mr. Obama to make the same mistake with a mindless escalation. Thus, he is skeptical of the request of the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, for as many as 40,000 additional combat troops. “General McChrystal’s recommendation makes sense in a narrow military framework; he has been given a particular task, to defeat the counterinsurgency,” Mr. Brzezinski says. “But suppose the counterinsurgency becomes a bigger insurgency,” he goes on. “This is why I’ve been saying let’s not do what the Russians did.” In short, let’s not get into the nation-building business. “We’ve had some sort of a notion that we build a modern society, democracy, with the help of Western-type Afghans.” While President George W. Bush “theologized” that concept, “Obama no longer embraces that theology,” Mr. Brzezinski says. “But let’s face it: Two years ago, what did he know about Afghanistan?” The former top national security aide is no soft-liner and thinks it would be a disaster to withdraw from Afghanistan or set deadlines for getting out. That brings up what the United States did after the Russians had to retreat. “Our biggest mistake was in 1989,” he says. “The Taliban arose not because of what we did in Afghanistan to help defeat the Soviets. They arose because of what we did not do in Afghanistan, which was to continue helping after the Soviets were driven out.” Looking at these Afghanistan bookends, he says Mr. Obama should “draw those two lessons together.” “We have to stay in Afghanistan politically and economically,” he says, “but at the same time we must not make the war against the Taliban our central preoccupation, thereby giving them the opportunity to label us the way the Soviets became labeled, as enemies of Afghans.” The Brzezinski view seems strikingly similar to the perspective of another surprising source, the Pakistani intelligence agency. America has long been suspicious of the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, which has been infiltrated by Islamic fundamentalists. Now, the Obama administration believes that after the Taliban’s march toward Islamabad, there may be a genuine awakening on the terrorism threat in the I.S.I., which had previously been focused almost exclusively on countering India. Last week, in a fascinating interview, both for the unusual access and the substance, with the Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, the top Pakistani intelligence official, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, expressed skepticism about a U.S. troop surge. At the same time, he showed deep concern that the United States would pull back from its commitments in the region. “The I.S.I. leadership thinks the United States can’t afford to lose in Afghanistan, and it worries about a security vacuum there that would endanger Pakistan,” Mr. Ignatius reported. “But at the same time, the I.S.I. fears that a big military surge, like up to the 40,000 additional troops McChrystal wants, could be counterproductive.” It can be reliably reported that this also reflects the views of Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, who wants more emphasis on the economic and political development in the region. The Pakistanis are very encouraged by recent congressional action in approving a measure co-sponsored by Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Senator Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, providing $7.5 billion of economic aid over the next five years. Mr. Obama has taken on more than a few tough issues this year, though the Afghanistan decision, for the first time, is producing serious fissures among his top policy makers. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and leading Democratic lawmakers are deeply skeptical of the request from General McChrystal, commander of the International Security Assistance Force and of U.S. forces in Afghanistan; most, not all, of the military, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and her high-powered Afghanistan-Pakistan special representative, Richard C. Holbrooke, are sympathetic. A pivotal figure in this debate, Mr. Brzezinski guesses, will be Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, a Bush holdover, who commands considerable respect in Washington. It isn’t clear where Mr. Obama will come down; it will be a surprise, however, if it isn’t somewhere close to where Mr. Gates is. While opposing a wide-scale escalation, and deeper U.S. involvement, Mr. Brzezinski says “some troop increases may be necessary maybe to hold Kandahar, maybe to hold the main cities in general. But beyond that, where is this sort of dawn in sight in a period of some darkness? I do not see that yet.” Much of the current revaluation, Mr. Obama’s top advisers say, stems from the discredited August election in Afghanistan and the ineffective president — Hamid Karzai. Mr. Brzezinski responds that Mr. Karzai may not be a bargain but that to cut him off would be a flawed approach. “If someone says to me, ‘Dump Karzai,’ my question always is, ‘Who do you replace him with?”’ he says. “We do not ostentatiously pick and dump rulers.” This line of reasoning, he recalls, makes the increasingly cited analogy to Vietnam more appropriate. In 1963, the United States engineered the removal of President Ngo Dinh Diem; it didn’t produce the desired results. “We dumped Diem without having an alternative,” Mr. Brzezinski says. The Vietnam analogy remains haunting. On Mr. Obama’s nightstand is Gordon Goldstein’s acclaimed biography of McGeorge Bundy, “Lessons in Disaster,” which describes the flawed decision-making of President Lyndon B. Johnson in the Vietnam quagmire. E-MAIL pagetwo@iht.com -------------------- Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then, will you realize that money cannot be eaten!!! (Cree Indian Prophecy)
IP: ----------

synergy	Posted: Oct 4 2009, 03:02 PM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,928 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	http://johnrandolphhardisoncain.blogspot.com/ -------------------- Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then, will you realize that money cannot be eaten!!! (Cree Indian Prophecy)
IP: ----------

synergy	Posted: Oct 4 2009, 06:01 PM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,928 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	AC 2009-10-04 Bull crap, minime. The United States military is under CIVILIAN control. The President is Commander in Chief and Congress must appropriate funds. There is no "getting the job done" militarily in Afghanistan. As outlined above it would take an occupation force of 620,000 troops ten or twelve years to pacify Afghanistan. That has never been done in history, and the number of successful counterinsurgency wars can be counted on one hand. Too bad you warmongers are ignorant of history and oblivious of what it takes to field an army that size in a distant land for a generation long war. It's just not going to happen. If Obama gives McChrystal 45,000 troops that will not turn the tide in this now 8 year long war. Today James Jones smacked McChrystal down by saying his analysis of the situation in Afghanistan is McChrystal's "opinion". The President as Commander in Chief must take into account many factors and get advice from many expert sources not just from a recently promoted Army General from the counterinsurgency theory school who has been on the job only a few months. The Obama administration has to formulate a regional strategy that takes into account Pakistan and other nations. Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sun Oct 4, 2009 6:56 PM -------------------- Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then, will you realize that money cannot be eaten!!! (Cree Indian Prophecy)
IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Oct 5 2009, 07:59 AM

Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,928 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)

Is USA "the greatest country in the world"? Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:56 am QUOTE ("nuke_guy") China and India have like a bizillion more people than US has. Their economy should be much larger than the US if their standard of living was anywhere close to the standard in the US. JohnRandolphHardisonCain replies: Yes, both India and China have more than 1 billion people each so there are economies of scale at work here (pun intended). It is also true that both India and China have huge masses of people still living in poverty, BUT that middle class is growing in both India and China. India has 300 to 400 million in its growing middle class. Tata motors is selling the Nano to these people, and China has the fastest growing car market in the world. China is also taking giant steps towards putting the world's first mass produced (no pun intended) electric car on the market. China is also putting economic stimulus money into its infrastructure (roads, bridges, upgrading its rail system) which produces jobs. United States is said to be an a jobless recovery with the possibility that our economy could still tank in the next couple of years. A $1.6 trillion - $2 trillion budget deficit and associated costs of borrowing money from places like China are putting us into an economic hole. The costs associated with waging two wars are also big factors in America's economic decline IMO. -------------------- Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then, will you realize that money cannot be eaten!!! (Cree Indian Prophecy)