Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (65144)	11/17/2009 5:48:41 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

Stop wasting lives on a war we can't win mydesert.com By Art Copleston Special to The Desert Sun November 15, 2009 The Soviet Union's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan led to 11 years of destruction and carnage. The Soviets sent in 100,000 soldiers in their effort to subdue and control the country. In the end, the Soviet treasury was devastated, 25,000 of their best soldiers had been killed and another 25,000 crippled or injured. The Soviets were humiliated and withdrew in total defeat. In the wake of that carnage, the Taliban came to power. By 1996, they had taken control of Afghanistan, imposing strict enforcement of fundamentalist Islamic law and providing a haven for Osama bin Laden. Following the 9/11 attacks on our country, President George W. Bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum to hand over bin Laden. They refused, so Bush launched his war against the Taliban in an effort to “get bin Laden, dead or alive.” We allowed bin Laden to escape. Then we turned our focus on Iraq, while continuing our misguided and fruitless efforts in Afghanistan. Fueled by recruits and money from foreign countries, the Taliban have built their strength in recent years. They run a sophisticated financial network that raises hundreds of millions of dollars yearly from the illicit drug trade, kidnappings and extortion. And now we have the Karzai regime, tarnished by perceived illegitimacy, as our only choice in our efforts to “stabilize” that country. What chance do we have to do that when the Afghans don't see their own government as legitimate? What is the value in continued American casualties and huge costs in pursuing what amounts to a 35-year-old civil war between rural people who just want to be left alone? Is our goal still to “get bin Laden, dead or alive”? How many troops will it take to do that — 40,000 more? Another 100,000? The hawks are intent on framing the debate narrowly: Either give Gen. Stanley McChrystal what he wants or accept national defeat and humiliation. Either endless war or Vietnam capitulation. What would “victory in Afghanistan” be? The truth is that victory in this misguided venture can't be defined, nor can it be attained by pursuing our current course. Obama knows that. He listens to his advisers and he thinks. Former Vice President Dick Cheney calls it “dithering.” If we continue to pour countless billions of dollars and thousands of troops into this effort forever, what will it gain us? Will we simply continue to bolster a failing state, while promoting an ideology and system of government unknown and unwanted by the Afghan people? If bin Laden so easily evaded us in 2002 by escaping through the mountains, what makes us think anything has changed? Have the mountains flattened? And, if we do succeed in chasing al-Qaida from Afghanistan, are we then to start a new war in some other country on the pretext of getting them “dead or alive”? Are we to allow perpetual war to define America's foreign policy? Should unambiguous military supremacy continue as the ugly and feared face of America's relationship with the rest of the world? Is that what we want? I say no. Now is the time for a major change in strategy. People around the world are watching and waiting for this president to deliver on his call for change. There can be no greater change than to remake America's image in the eyes of the world. Enough! _____________________ *Art Copleston of Palm Springs is chairman of the Desert Foundation for Democracy. E-mail him at asavage@dc.rr.com

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (65144)	11/17/2009 6:02:25 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

Bring Them Home, Mr. President truthdig.com By Eugene Robinson Columnist The Washington Post Posted on Nov 12, 2009 The most dreadful burden of the presidency—the power to send men and women to die for their country—seems to weigh heavily on Barack Obama these days. He went to Dover Air Force Base to salute the coffins of fallen troops. He gave a moving speech at the memorial service for victims of last week’s killings at Fort Hood. On Veterans Day, after the traditional wreath-laying at Arlington National Cemetery, he took an unscheduled walk among the rows of marble headstones in Section 60, where many of the dead from our two ongoing wars are buried. As he decides whether to escalate the war in Afghanistan, Obama should keep these images in mind. Geopolitical calculation has human consequences. Sending more troops will mean more coffins arriving at Dover, more funerals at Arlington, more stress and hardship for military families. It would be wrong to demand such sacrifice in the absence of military goals that are clear, achievable and worthwhile. And what goals in Afghanistan remotely satisfy those criteria? The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the U.S. ambassador in Kabul, Karl Eikenberry, recently sent two classified cables to officials in Washington expressing what the newspaper described as “deep concerns” about sending more troops now. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, chosen by Obama to lead U.S. forces in Afghanistan, has asked for perhaps 40,000 additional troops to carry out a counterinsurgency campaign. Armchair Napoleons in Washington, comfortably ensconced in their book-lined offices, insist that Obama must “listen to the generals.” But Eikenberry was a four-star general until Obama named him ambassador earlier this year. He commanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2006-07. He as well needs to be heard. In what were described as sharply worded cables, Eikenberry reportedly expressed serious doubts about the willingness of Afghan President Hamid Karzai to tackle the corruption and mismanagement that have made his government so unpopular and ineffectual—and that have allowed the Taliban to effectively regain control of much of the country. Karzai, you will recall, committed what observers described as widespread, blatant election fraud in “winning” a new term in office. In many parts of Afghanistan, the Karzai government is seen as so weak and corrupt that the Taliban has been able to move in as a lesser-of-two-evils alternative. It is axiomatic that a successful counterinsurgency program requires a partnership with a reliable, legitimate government. If the Karzai regime is not such a partner, the goal that McChrystal would be pursuing with those extra 40,000 troops would not be achievable. Obama is also reported to be considering scenarios in which he would send roughly 30,000 extra troops, somehow persuading our unwilling NATO allies to make up the difference, or send about 20,000 troops and modify the McChrystal plan, opting instead for a “hybrid” strategy that’s part counterinsurgency, part counterterrorism. I’m skeptical that either of these options sets goals that are achievable, and I’m certain that neither sets goals that are clear. Following his visits to Dover, Fort Hood and Arlington Cemetery, Obama should focus the attention of the White House and the Pentagon on a question that too often is overlooked: What troops? Our all-volunteer armed forces have been at war for eight years with no end in sight, serving tours of duty of up to 15 months in the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. Many units have been called to serve multiple tours. By contrast, most Vietnam War veterans served a single one-year tour. Fighting two big simultaneous wars with our armed forces stretched so thin has put enormous emotional, psychological and economic stress on military families. The suicide rate in the armed forces has climbed steadily, as has the incidence of stress disorders among veterans. The Pentagon is adept at shuttling its people around and has worked out how to provide the 40,000 troops McChrystal wants. But any new deployment would come at a heavy cost—a human cost—far beyond the billions of dollars required to train, equip, transport and maintain the units being sent. There are reports that Obama has refused to sign off on any plan until his advisers tell him how they propose to end the expanded war they advocate. But this sounds like just another way of saying: Tell me how we’re going to fix the mistake we’re about to make. As long as our goals in Afghanistan remain as elusive as they are now, Obama shouldn’t be sending troops. He should be bringing them out. Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com. © 2009, Washington Post Writers Group