Not to be outdone in the hopeless military adventurism department, Barack Obama promises a "surge"--not in Iraq, but against the people of Afghanistan, who are even more fiercely opposed to U.S. occupation than Iraqis.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Someone should raise the question *cough cough* about Obama's feelings on Guantanamo if he's as hardcore on Afghanistan as he said in yesterday's speech. Wants to add 10,000 troops and possibly declare war on Pakistan. He buys into the idea of a Global War on Terror. Since that's the case, does he believe that the people in Guantanamo Bay are the "worst of the worst"? Does he believe in the category of "unlwaful combatant"? What rights or lack or rights does he think that someone apprehended as a potential terrorist in Afghanistan has?
ReplyDeleteDeclare war on Pakistan? When did he say this?
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean we're finally gonna get some hash?????
ReplyDeleteCan somebody please explain to me the mission in Afghanistan? I'm serious.
ReplyDeleteanonymous@8:02
ReplyDeleteTough Talk from Obama on Pakistan
jxc
ReplyDeleteAre you referring to this from the linked article:
""If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said."
Doesn't seem like a declaration of war to me. A promise to act? Is that the same as an invasion? Is that a declaration of war?
If there is actionable intel on high-value terrorist targets in Pakistan Musharaf won't act, what do you think would be an appropriate response? Out of curiousity.
Ted, just a quick word of thanks for being pretty much the only pundit who doesn't and has never bought into the whole thing about "Bombing Afghanistan (for the umpteenth time) back into the Stone Age is obviously perfectly moral as well as tactically sound because our biggest bogeyman once spent some time there a few years back."
ReplyDeleteWe've spent the past five years in Iraq re-learning the lesson that dropping bombs from a mile up doesn't root out the causes of terrorism, you have to be on the ground and work with people instead of killing them. Somehow the war in Afghanistan has gone on two years longer than that with nobody even wondering whether the same model applies.
Ted, would you have drawn a similar cartoon depicting the Vietcong instead of the Taliban back in the '60s?
ReplyDeleteC'mon Ted! South Asia is where empires go to die, Obama would just be fulfilling the tragedy, what's so bad about that?
ReplyDeletePetraeus, everyone's favorite counter-insurgency expert, has just nominated a new crop of one star generals for our elite republican guard. How else can they get to two stars? Then there may be munitions with a shelf-life and concerns about Halliburton and Blackwater's revenue outlook. Don't forget about the need to stimulate the domestic economy.
ReplyDeleteEmperors and their generals have many important concerns.
Wasn't it nice of Gates to suggest they should toss a few bucks to State? True generosity. I wonder if the move to cozy up to Iran is in hopes of getting some help in this other theater.
Have you learned to love the phrase "tamp down the insurgency?" It is so much better than "bomb them into the Stone Age" although it does sound mas macho.
Aggie, you made me laugh out loud with the "South Asia is where empires go to die" comment.
ReplyDeleteI've been a big supporter of Obama, but damnmit I'm more than nervous. The FISA switch was bad enough.
The messy thing is even if you believe there are terrorists in the short term who need to be dealt with (I do), any sane person has to admit the Afghani policy is a complete logistical and moral disaster.
Has there been a more randomly popular war in recent memory? One with no results, heavy casualties, and no real purpose? It's like Iraq makes Afghanistan look good. Like McCain to Obama. (Or Rudy to McCain.)
I've been away from my computer for awhile, in response to anon. @ 12:50 PM do you recalled how we declared war on Iraq? Me either. This is how wars are done these days, first a lot of saber rattling and talk about actionable intellegence and high value targets. Then the case is made that national security demands immediate action, the result is a war, undeclared but just as bloody.
ReplyDeleteSince Obama has stated he would act in the event that Musharaf should refuse to, you have to ask yourself what action would be appropriate. Air strikes, cruise missles, incursion? Would such action into a sovereign, atomic weapons possessing nation be considered an act of war? To commit an act of war is about the same as declaring war, for my money.
Aggie,
ReplyDeleteYou're damn right about South Asia being the crumbling empires' final resting place! Now if only we could get the EU to join Uncle Sam in this surge...
That's a nice tank!
ReplyDeleteIt's really depressing to watch Obama..As my 3rd choice for president... I could only 'hope' that he would actually be a 'change' yet everyday he does something to kill that hope.
And the media keeps pointing out that the real left is angry with him, but then points out "what are they gonna do, it's not like they've got anyone else to vote for"
and yet Mccain and all republicans can be far right as possible, and it doesn't hurt them.
Ted,
You should consider sending Obama a copy of 'Wake Up You're Liberal"
Afghans seem to be okay with it:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/10/18/afghan-poll.html
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/10/18/afghan-poll.html
ReplyDeleteTed actually drew a comic about this curious phenomenon during the bombing in 2001.
It was this Afghan guy saying something like "hey, if it makes them feel better...."
while bombs dropped behind him
Ralph Nader
ReplyDeleteBob Barr
ReplyDeleteChuck Baldwin!
ReplyDelete