JRHC Journal Update 08 Oct 2009

Posted: Oct 8 2009, 05:09 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 33,208 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	The bottom line Augusta Chronicle editorial Thursday, October 08, 2009 QUOTE Regardless of what President Obama decides to do in Afghanistan, it's a good bet much of the world won't appreciate it -- or acknowledge the good that America does in the world. And they sure won't join us in the heavy lifting. Notwithstanding, this is not America's war. This is a struggle to civilize the hornet's nest that time forgot. Terrorists based in Afghanistan attacked us in 2001 -- but their ilk are at war with civilization all over the globe, from India and Pakistan and Iraq and Afghanistan to Indonesia, Africa and elsewhere. And while a "coalition of the willing" occasionally stands with us, it's mostly America that is shedding its blood to fight the world's battles for it. Afghanistan, historically a caustic cauldron of chaos, is no different. So be it. We'll go it largely alone. Because we have to. QUOTE What a pathetic excuse for an editorial! Poor old beset upon Uncle Sam! Nobody likes us. The Augusta Chronicle editorial staff (ACES) offers no explanation why this might be so. In an editorial on Oct 6 titled "Does left want a weakened America?" ACES claimed that liberals are ashamed of America's superpower status & want it weakened. The truth is United States is weakened & the world marching to its own terms because of a misuse of that power. What IS United States fighting for in Afghanistan? The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan 8 years ago was justified because we were in pursuit of those who planned & carried out the 9/11 & other terrorist attacks. Al Qaeda camps were destroyed although Sheriff George Wyatt Earp Bush never brought Osama bin Laden to justice as he swore he would. United States had the right to overthrow the Taliban gov't while in hot pursuit of the 9/11 perpetrators. United States maintains the right to pursue & bring to justice those DIRECTLY responsible for 9/11. United States does not have the right or the need to wage war in Afghanistan for 8 years. An article in The London Times yesterday says American troops are losing heart because the US mission is unclear. Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Thu Oct 8, 2009 6:00 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 8 2009, 06:28 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 33,208 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	QUOTE Actually the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan became unclear on March 20, 2003 when President George W. Bush took his sights off OBL, set his sights on Saddam Hussein & ordered the US invasion of Iraq w/o completing the mission in Afghanistan. In 2002 SecDef Rumsfeld touted the "amazing success" of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. No Americans opposed the initial U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in Oct 2001. The Taliban were overthrown in Nov 2001. In Dec 2001 OBL was allowed to escape when he was trapped in the Tora Bora mountains of Afghanistan. Instead of going in after OBL themselves the U.S. military outsourced that job to locals. Guess what? OBL got away & lived to fight another day. At one point President George W. Bush stated that he was no longer much concerned about the fate of OBL because Al Qaeda had been significantly degraded. United States' mission became unclear in Afghanistan when the lives of ordinary Afghans failed to improve under U.S.-backed President Hamid Karzai. Make no mistake, United States is the power behind the "sovereign" (in name only) states of Afghanistan & Iraq. The mission was doomed when locals perceived Americans as occupiers not liberators. Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Thu Oct 8, 2009 7:25 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 8 2009, 09:27 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 33,208 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	QUOTE I don't think that Republican war supporters give a damn about what is in the best interest of the Afghan people. They are concerned with United States winning a military victory no matter the costs. Justus4 is absolutely correct when he writes "Get out of Afghanistan now because next year will be too late." False pride and fear of humiliation are driving United States deeper into a quagmire. President Obama along with VP Biden, Sec of State Clinton, and members of Congress are all American Establishment politicians. Obama has removed the option of a U.S. withdrawal from the table. That is the only viable option this country has. If we really want to rebuild Afghanistan, work for women's rights, etc. in Afghanistan, that is best done from the outside by supporting NGOs and other aid, developmental, and human rights groups working at the margins. Waging endless war in Afghanistan will not lead to a U.S. victory, a stable Afghanistan, or reconstruction of that shattered country. That said, Biden's counter-terrorism strategy is a less destructive, less costly, and a more workable policy than the U.S. Army's counter-insurgency strategy. Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Thu Oct 8, 2009 10:25 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 8 2009, 09:47 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 33,208 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	QUOTE "Beijing's Afghan Gamble" by Robt Kaplan [NYTimes] 07 Oct 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/opinion/07kaplan.html "In nuts-and-bolts terms, if we stay in Afghanistan and eventually succeed, other countries will benefit more than we will. China, India and Russia are all Asian powers, geographically proximate to Afghanistan and better able, therefore, to garner practical advantages from any stability our armed forces would make possible.//Everyone keeps saying that America is not an empire, but our military finds itself in the sort of situation that was mighty familiar to empires like that of ancient Rome and 19th-century Britain: struggling in a far-off corner of the world to exact revenge, to put down the fires of rebellion, and to restore civilized order. Meanwhile, other rising and resurgent powers wait patiently in the wings, free-riding on the public good we offer. This is exactly how an empire declines, by allowing others to take advantage of its own exertions." Robert D. Kaplan is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and a correspondent for The Atlantic. Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Thu Oct 8, 2009 10:45 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 8 2009, 10:15 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 33,208 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	QUOTE Right, augustalawyer! United States is going to occupy, pacify, reconstruct & change the mores of 31 million Afghans. Don't forget about instability in Pakistan. We are also going to try to raise the standard of living of 180 million Pakistanis who, by the way, resent us giving them money because Pakistanis perceive the U.S. is interfering in their country. Have you read the news report about this? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/world/as...lamabad.html?em "U.S. Push to Expand in Pakistan Meets Resistance" by Jane Perlez [NYTimes 05 Oct 2009]. Islamic militants in Pakistan object to interference & so too does the Pakistani military. Have you read the news reports about Afghanistan, augustalawyer, which say Afghanistan is too poor to support a large standing army? The U.S. military says it will take 3 to 5 years to train an Afghan army. 80 to 90% of Afghans are illiterate. Many experts say it may take twice that long if it is possible to train a competent army that will "stand up". The police force is corrupt in Afghanistan. People hate them more than they hate the Taliban. Are you old enough to remember Vietnam, augustalawyer? Vietnamization did not work. Why repeat mistakes? Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Thu Oct 8, 2009 11:04 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 8 2009, 08:24 PM

Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 33,208 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)

Sad to say, but Obama's "ultimatum" of sorts (i.e. participate in the political process but don't try to overthrow the U.S.-backed corrupt and weak central gov't of Hamid Karzai) will not be accepted by the Taliban. It is for United States to leave Afghanistan. United States in a state of weakness is in no position to dictate terms to the Talbian. This is a non-starter. The United States should hold unconditional talks with the Taliban immediately and renounce the corrupt gov't of Hamid Karzai. Obama's purported formula will only lead more entanglements with less options for the U.S. occupation. If India gets sucked into the vortex of violence this conflagration could become a regional or even a world war. QUOTE Obama - involve Taleban in Afghanistan future Senior official said that President is unlikely to accept a large influx of troops requested by the current US commander Barack Obama: Taleban can be involved in Afghanistan future QUOTE From The Times of London October 9, 2009 The Taleban issued a statement on their website declaring that they had "no agenda to harm other countries" Tim Reid in Washington President Obama is prepared to accept some Taleban involvement in Afghanistan’s political future and is unlikely to favour a large influx of new American troops being demanded by his ground commander, a senior official said last night. Mr Obama appears to have been swayed in recent days by arguments from some advisers, led by Vice-President Joe Biden, that the Taleban do not pose a direct threat to the US and that there should be greater focus on tackling al-Qaeda inside Pakistan. Mr Obama’s developing strategy on the Taleban will “not tolerate their return to power”, the senior official said. However, the US would only fight to keep the Taleban from retaking control of the central government — something the official said it is now far from capable of — and from giving renewed sanctuary to al-Qaeda. Bowing to the reality that the fundamentalist movement is too ingrained in national culture, the Administration is prepared, as it has been for some time, to accept some Taleban role in parts of Afghanistan, the official said. That could mean paving the way for insurgents willing to renounce violence to participate in a central government, and even ceding some regions of the country to the Taleban. Mr Obama, the official said, is now inclined to send only as many more troops to Afghanistan as are needed to keep al-Qaeda at bay. Downing Street said that the US President had discussed Afghanistan with Gordon Brown yesterday during a 40-minute video conference call. Sending far fewer troops than the 40,000 being demanded by General Stanley McChrystal would mean that Mr Obama is willing to ignore the wishes of his ground commander. General McChrystal, along with the US military’s other top officials, insist that only a classic, well-resourced counter-insurgency strategy has a chance of staving off defeat in Afghanistan. Losing the war, they further argue, would provide al-Qaeda with new safe havens from which to mount attacks on the US and elsewhere. After two days of meetings in the White House Situation Room with his war Cabinet, Mr Obama, according to the official, kept returning to one central question: who is our adversary? The answer was, repeatedly, al-Qaeda, with advisers arguing that the terror network was distinct from the Taleban and that the US military was fighting the Taleban even though it posed no direct threat to America. In a sign of how politically astute the insurgents have become in deciphering the debate raging inside the White House, the Taleban issued a statement on their website yesterday declaring that they had “no agenda to harm other countries”. Mr Obama appears to be thinking that the primary aim of US forces in Afghanistan is to deny al-Qaeda any ability to regroup there — as it did before the 9/11 attacks. Such a mission would require only a small increase in the forces deployed in Afghanistan and a bigger focus on killing al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan. Such an approach will be resisted fiercely by General McChrystal and most Republicans. Two other factors have played a significant role in the debate. Mr Obama is concerned that the discredited Government of President Karzai could doom a counter-insurgency strategy to failure. The second is how encouraged the Administration has become over the Pakistani Government’s willingness to take the battle to extremists inside its own borders.

Posted: Oct 8 2009, 08:24 PM

Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 33,246 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)

Sad to say, but Obama's "ultimatum" of sorts (i.e. participate in the political process but don't try to overthrow the U.S.-backed corrupt and weak central gov't of Hamid Karzai) will not be accepted by the Taliban. It is for United States to leave Afghanistan. United States in a state of weakness is in no position to dictate terms to the Talbian. This is a non-starter. The United States should hold unconditional talks with the Taliban immediately and renounce the corrupt gov't of Hamid Karzai. Obama's purported formula will only lead more entanglements with less options for the U.S. occupation. If India gets sucked into the vortex of violence this conflagration could become a regional or even a world war.