Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

He probably has good intentions, but Obama is just soooo wrong about this.

Posted by on Dec. 1, 2009 at 8:29 PM
  • 14 Replies

 I completely agree with this guy......... PLEASE READ FIRST if you want to comment about it.

Posted: December 1, 2009 05:41 AM
 

 Until about a month ago, I agreed with Barack Obama's strategy in Afghanistan. I thought we should have concentrated on Afghanistan from the beginning. We should have brought in so many more troops. We owed it to the Afghan people to do the best we could for them since we happened to invade their country. I think the Taliban is the scourge of the earth, and the idea that they might take over after we leave is abhorrent to me. We had to stay and get it right.

So, what happened?

The Afghan elections.

Over one million votes were fraudulent. 1.3 million fake votes were thrown out to be exact. That's out of only five million votes. That's ridiculous. Obviously the current government of Afghanistan is a sham. The key to "winning" in Afghanistan is to convince the Afghani people to work with us. They have to side with us over the Taliban. If they don't, we're not helping them, we're fighting them. And that's just about where we are now.

What's the long term strategy? Kill all the Taliban? Do we even know who is Taliban and who is not? Matthew Hoh, the US diplomat who resigned his post in protest of the war, points out that "valleyism" reigns supreme in Afghanistan. That means if you come into my valley, I will fight you. They don't care if you're Russian or British or Persian or American or even an Afghan from the central government. You step into their valley, and they will fight you to the bitter end. And there is no end. They're fighting us because we're fighting them.

Yes, that's all good and fine. The Karzai government has no legitimacy or broad popular support. We can't possibly "win" and we don't even know what it means for us to "win." But what about the Taliban? We can't let them take over Afghanistan. But who is to say they would? Here's what I realized recently - when we leave, it'll be them fighting in the valleys.

The Taliban never had full control of Afghanistan, and they never will. The minute they try to take charge, the Afghans - as is in their nature - will rebel. They'll fight back. They'll fight for their valleys. They'll fight to the bitter end. And there is no end.

How about Al Qaeda? There are very few Al Qaeda fighters left in Afghanistan. And drone strikes work just as well in Afghanistan as they do in Pakistan (or just as poorly, depending on your perspective). Let's focus on getting those guys - remember they're the ones who actually attacked us. But we don't have to occupy a whole country (and rebuild it, too) while we hunt for Al Qaeda. If you think that we do, then under that logic, we should invade Pakistan and occupy it until we capture Osama bin Laden who is hiding in that country.

And we recently showed in Somalia that we can eliminate Al Qaeda operatives with Special Ops Forces on targeted missions. When we went after the Al Qaeda leader in that region, we swooped in with a small team, took out the target and took back off. Imagine if we invaded Somalia instead. Would anyone in their right mind be in favor of that as an alternate policy? So, is the difference in Afghanistan simply that we're there already? Is that a good enough reason to continue a policy that we otherwise would not and should not carry out?

Finally, the amount of money we're spending on these wars is insane. In Iraq and Afghanistan combined, we have so far spent $937 billion. For that kind of money, we could have already given everyone in the country health care - and not even paid for it. The wars, unlike the current health care proposals, are not deficit neutral. They are enormous budget busters and suck the funding from everything else. Is there really anyone in America who believes a few more years of the Afghanistan war is worth not getting health care coverage for themselves or their family?

The bottom line is that we don't have a viable partner in Afghanistan and we don't have the legitimacy that is essential to rebuilding the country. The Afghans don't view us as their saviors. They view us as the latest intruder in their valley. That is not a visit that is going to work out for us. That's not a visit that's ever worked out for anybody.

AMEN!

Written by Cenk Uygur  and posted on Huff Post

by on Dec. 1, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
stormcris
by Christy on Dec. 1, 2009 at 8:41 PM

Thank you. I am so glad someone else finally said something about the success of the Special Ops missions.

       Join us on

Current Events & Hot Topics
             Group Mod

LauraKW
by "Dude!" on Dec. 1, 2009 at 8:49 PM

Of the $937 million that has been spent on the wars, how much was spent during Obama's predecessor's regime?  You can't walk away from a mess that your own country created.  I don't think his goal is to occupy Afghanistan like we have occupied Iraq for the past 8 years.  I think the plan is to shore up the levees, so to speak, and get us the hell out of there.  My 2 cents, anyway.

stormcris
by Christy on Dec. 1, 2009 at 8:51 PM

I had to come back and ask a question:

I thought we were already in Pakistan as mentioned at the Trilateral Meetings back in April(?) did I misunderstand?

       Join us on

Current Events & Hot Topics
             Group Mod

tericared
by on Dec. 1, 2009 at 8:51 PM


Quoting LauraKW:

Of the $937 million that has been spent on the wars, how much was spent during Obama's predecessor's regime?  You can't walk away from a mess that your own country created.  I don't think his goal is to occupy Afghanistan like we have occupied Iraq for the past 8 years.  I think the plan is to shore up the levees, so to speak, and get us the hell out of there.  My 2 cents, anyway.

I have to agree....

Join us on
         
Current Events & Hot Topics

              Group Mod

Della529
by on Dec. 1, 2009 at 8:52 PM

I was watching the Presidential Address earlier.  I swear, the more he talks, the more he sounds exactly like his predecessor.

This author of this is pretty much dead on.

tericared
by on Dec. 1, 2009 at 8:53 PM

Atleast he didnt blame 9/11 on Iraq...during his speech 

Join us on
         
Current Events & Hot Topics

              Group Mod

AMom29
by Gold Member on Dec. 1, 2009 at 8:57 PM

I didn't catch all of his speech, but I have mixed feelings about all of this.

This war was messed up from the word "go".  It's going to take a lot to clean up.  You would think we would learn from history (Afghanistan being where empires go to die) but, no, we were doomed to repeat it.

That said, we can't just pull out and watch the country implode on itself.  If the govt is a sham (not arguing that) then their infrastructure is most likely non-existent.  If we pull out without a plan in place, we will leave a bigger mess.  Though, I don't know how to get a strong govt in there so we CAN get out.

I don't think there is a good solution.  Obviously, I want everyone to come home ASAP, but in reality, I don't see how any of this will end well.  It's bigger than Obama or Bush now. 

Gypsyuma
by Gold Member on Dec. 1, 2009 at 9:00 PM


Quoting LauraKW:

Of the $937 million that has been spent on the wars, how much was spent during Obama's predecessor's regime?  You can't walk away from a mess that your own country created.  I don't think his goal is to occupy Afghanistan like we have occupied Iraq for the past 8 years.  I think the plan is to shore up the levees, so to speak, and get us the hell out of there.  My 2 cents, anyway.


This is not an Obama bashing post - I just think despite his good intentions that it is impossible to WIN, and there is nothing to WIN anyway.

Shore up what levees?  Did you read about the "valleyism"?

 

aidans_mama
by on Dec. 1, 2009 at 9:04 PM


Quoting tericared:


Quoting LauraKW:

Of the $937 million that has been spent on the wars, how much was spent during Obama's predecessor's regime?  You can't walk away from a mess that your own country created.  I don't think his goal is to occupy Afghanistan like we have occupied Iraq for the past 8 years.  I think the plan is to shore up the levees, so to speak, and get us the hell out of there.  My 2 cents, anyway.

 

I have to agree....


I agree as well.  I would have liked for him to end this and bring what troops we have there (Afghanistan) now back and just let them sort it out themselves, but I don't have all the information he does.  I support his decision, I would have liked them (our soldiers) to all come home, but this was a tough decision and Obama wasn't going to please everyone no matter his decision.  None of his options seemed all that good. 

I am praying that this is the best route for us to take. 

 

Gypsyuma
by Gold Member on Dec. 1, 2009 at 9:05 PM


Quoting stormcris:

I had to come back and ask a question:

I thought we were already in Pakistan as mentioned at the Trilateral Meetings back in April(?) did I misunderstand?


Not sure about your questions, but the author of article was saying if we use the logic that we have to occupy and fight a war to take out the Taliban in Afhganistan, then why are we not doing the same on Pakistan to get Bin Laden?  The answer is - it is just not necessary and is actually counter-productive.  We create more Taliban supporters every day that we are there and creating havoc in that country.  The author said Special Ops would be more effective like they used in Somalia.

I agree with him.

 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)