RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,175621,00.html
We need more troops in Afghanistan, but not combat troops. Civil affairs, MPs, engineers, and medics would go a long way. In addition, Dubya and his successor should send 1000 Agronomists and keep them there for at least a year.

Mr. Keenan, I strongly agree with you, and I generally agree with Mr. Lind on this point. Someone ought to send Sen. Obama a copy of The Ugly American as a textbook for how to succeed in Afghanistan. Rebuilding the critical civilian infrastructure (and not focused on what we think they need, but rather what they tell us they need) will be much more effective than trying to "kill all the bad guys". I honestly believe that there is hope for Sen. Obama to see the light here, despite his campaign comments. With advice from folks like Sen. Jim Webb, and other folks who seem to "get it", taking a new direction in foreign policy is a distinct possibility for the Obama administration. I honestly don't see any potential for Sen. McCain to head that way, though the McCain I voted for in 2000 could have been persuaded to be smart while we still have the chance.

The very first day after Obama clinched the nomination, he sold out to the NeoCons. That day, he went to the annual AIPAC convention. He groveled; and swore to support their political aims.

Support for Zionism and the war on terror go together. After abusing the millions of Americans who oppose this maniacal strategy pre-emptive wars against Islamic nationalism, in order to gain their votes, he moved to a position that is closer to that of McCain/Lieberman than most people realize, in the hope that "They" will give him the chance to govern.

"Change we can believe in?" I don't think so!

Afghanistan will best be served by developing the country, All the people have today is poppies and warriors. Unless an alternative is offered, the terrorists will never be defeated. I also agree that Pakistan MUST be handled with kid gloves; they went nuclear a long time ago, and we no longer have Musharraf in our pocket. Nukes aren't just for the battlefield anymore. We might not be fighting a holy war, but THEY are.

Sorry Mr. Lind,no soap. If B.H.Obama is wrong about sending more troops to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban/al-qaeda, the real killers(ala OJ Simpson), the real perpetraitors of 9/11, then 90% of all Americans are wrong too. Afghanistan was put on the back burner while the Iraq debacle took the resources needed to beat the Taliban.Thats spilt milk and now its time to put the full court press on the Taliban.

Remember, the consequences are far more dire if the Taliban,al-qaeda,and others are allowed to bleed the coalition in Afghanistan than they are in Iraq. Also theres no doubt as to the mission.No WMD or Saddam/9/11 hokem. This is the real deal.And you cannot have NGOs or reconstruction by civilian types in Afghanistan if the Taliban can freely murder them as they have done and continue to do.The Taliban must be defeated by force of arms.Period.

Read the history of foreign invasions of Afghanistan, and it becomes plainly evident that a "force of arms" approach, by itself, is doomed to fail. The British and Russians tried it in the 1870s, and the Soviets tried it in the early 1980s. That's not to say that military forces are not essential to success there, just that the force option must be designed to support the infrastructure building component, not the other way around.

As much as I don't want to agree with Mr. Lind on this one, he's been hitting bullseyes all along so far on our efforts in the ME. The dilemma for anyone running for Prez is they have to appear "strong" to somebody. Saying you're going to bomb another country into oblivion usually works for that illusion. Missile strikes are cool. Carriers are very impressive, very macho. It's interesting how Hillary before and now Sarah have to strap on testicles, so-to-speak to get any attention on military matters. Belligerence begets belligerence. Bluster is little more than hot air disguised as words. But if you want to be Prez, you better have some bombers warmed up and on the runway... just in case.

AGB:
Agree, plus don't forget Obama caving in on the legislation to immunize the telecom companies.

Lind writes:
"The state of Pakistan is already dangerously fragile, and actions such as cross-border raids by American troops will diminish its legitimacy further. No government that cannot defend its sovereignty will last."

Lind implies that the tribal areas are under sovereign control of the Pakis, of course they are not, which is why Musharruf made a peace pact with the Taliban and tangentially Al Qaeda. Staying the course of "plinking" away via Predators for seven years has yielded a change of address and new digs for planning offensive operations like the London bombings for Osama and company. So what if Pakistan implodes? The Pakis have to face up to whether they want fundamentalists to continue to erode their way of life it is that simple. We have to roll in on Wazaristan and clean it up. We cannot continue to stay there and wait for what? Wazaristan is the job made complex by the fact we didn't cut Al Qaeda off from entering Pakistan when the CIA team on the ground asked for troops to do so, blame the neocons on that call.

quote:

Originally posted by AGBrina:
The very first day after Obama clinched the nomination, he sold out to the NeoCons. That day, he went to the annual AIPAC convention. He groveled; and swore to support their political aims.

Support for Zionism and the war on terror go together. After abusing the millions of Americans who oppose this maniacal strategy pre-emptive wars against Islamic nationalism, in order to gain their votes, he moved to a position that is closer to that of McCain/Lieberman than most people realize, in the hope that "They" will give him the chance to govern.

"Change we can believe in?" I don't think so!

quote:

Originally posted by rockriver04:
AGB:
Agree, plus don't forget Obama caving in on the legislation to immunize the telecom companies.

Lind writes:
"The state of Pakistan is already dangerously fragile, and actions such as cross-border raids by American troops will diminish its legitimacy further. No government that cannot defend its sovereignty will last."

Lind implies that the tribal areas are under sovereign control of the Pakis, of course they are not, which is why Musharruf made a peace pact with the Taliban and tangentially Al Qaeda. Staying the course of "plinking" away via Predators for seven years has yielded a change of address and new digs for planning offensive operations like the London bombings for Osama and company. So what if Pakistan implodes? The Pakis have to face up to whether they want fundamentalists to continue to erode their way of life it is that simple. We have to roll in on Wazaristan and clean it up. We cannot continue to stay there and wait for what? Wazaristan is the job made complex by the fact we didn't cut Al Qaeda off from entering Pakistan when the CIA team on the ground asked for troops to do so, blame the neocons on that call.

This is all well and good. And if necessary I would be a supporter of cross border raids, indeed, even a supporter of open war.

But we have a new secular based government in Pakistan, and as recent events have shown, a government which is being attacked by Al Qaeda.

It would seem to me that after waiting almost seven years for Musareff to clean up his act; after watching him sign treaties, provide safe havens, with us doing Nothing, why suddenly this rush to invade?

Surely the last thing this new government needs is the kind of threat to soverignty that such raids would lead to.

If we're serious here than our first moves should be to do everything we can to bolster this new government. After six months or a year, if there's no progress, then do what we have to do.

Dave

Nice to see more people supporting Mr. Lind as he has been pretty much on the money for the past couple of years with this entire middle-east fiasco.

The real problem is, at least in my opinion, neither McCain nor Obama get it. Both seem completely devoid of any knowledge when it comes to military operations and the use of our armed forces, instead it is all political gibberish meant for hometown consumption in a campaign that neither have used effectively. Both have been less than honest with the American people so we get voters casting a ballot for the lesser of two evils instead of a ballot being cast based upon the truth.

Maybe our Founders had it right when voting was restricted to a certain group of citizens instead of it being emmancipated and allowing all of us to now cast a ballot.

S/F Gordon

obama has no military experience

quote:

Originally posted by uh34d:
Nice to see more people supporting Mr. Lind as he has been pretty much on the money for the past couple of years with this entire middle-east fiasco.

The real problem is, at least in my opinion, neither McCain nor Obama get it. Both seem completely devoid of any knowledge when it comes to military operations and the use of our armed forces, instead it is all political gibberish meant for hometown consumption in a campaign that neither have used effectively. Both have been less than honest with the American people so we get voters casting a ballot for the lesser of two evils instead of a ballot being cast based upon the truth.

Maybe our Founders had it right when voting was restricted to a certain group of citizens instead of it being emmancipated and allowing all of us to now cast a ballot.

S/F Gordon

The decision to use military force is always a political decision. Whoever makes that decision is then down to choosing which General to believe. Did Roosevelt, who had no military experience err, when he choose to use Marshall?

Or did Mr. Bush err by choosing to retire Shasliki?

As for the vote, as Mr. Churchill once said, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

And I agree...

Dave

Dave[/QUOTE]

Gracus

The decision to use military force is always a political decision.

(I believe we all know this.)

Whoever makes that decision is then down to choosing which General to believe. Did Roosevelt, who had no military experience err, when he choose to use Marshall?

(Roosevelt, unlike a number of our presidents was an intelligent, well educated individual. Though he can be faulted for making mistakes during his presidency, he chose his people very carefully. He opted for Marshall because he knew and rusted the man. Roosevelts choice was based on an intelligent evaluation of his options...it was not a political decision, nor did Roosevelt want a 'yes' person to do his political bidding.

General Shalicashvili was the right general but he did not agree with a president making a political decision as opposed to a military decision. Sadly, politics won out and we have paid the price ever since in Iraq.)

Or did Mr. Bush err by choosing to retire Shasliki?

(History has already shown Bush made a very bad decision when he did.)

As for the vote, as Mr. Churchill once said, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

(The above has nothing to do with the historical facts presented by me. My comment was directed at the fact, there was a time in America as a young democracy where not everyone was allowed to vote. Perhaps our Founders weighed the options and at that time realized by allowing everyone to vote, we would have political chaos and a degradation of the system to the point of our government not being able to function...which is what we now have, a dysfunctional government where sound bites, lying and deception are the norm instead of the exception.)

And I agree...

(No one denies a democracy is better than the rest. But remember, a democracy has always degenerated into chaos once its citizens realize they can feed at the trough of largess provided by its elected officials. There isn't a Congressmen out there who doesn't return to his constituents at election time and not tell them about the vast amounts of money they have brought back to them for their use...even if it is a waste of their own money...no money, no reelection.)

S/F Gordon

quote:

Originally posted by uh34d:


(No one denies a democracy is better than the rest. But remember, a democracy has always degenerated into chaos once its citizens realize they can feed at the trough of largess provided by its elected officials. There isn't a Congressmen out there who doesn't return to his constituents at election time and not tell them about the vast amounts of money they have brought back to them for their use...even if it is a waste of their own money...no money, no reelection.)

S/F Gordon

The Founders did not set electoral requirments, they left that to the States. And at that time, most of us owned our own farms, and were indeed "property owners."

But that's besides the point. The point of what the Founders did was the US Constitution, a document designed to prevent "momentary passion" from dominating events. Whether a small crowd or a large crowd, it's easy to be dominated by "momentary passions."

We only get into problems when we leave that document behind, and that would be true, no matter how many people vote or don't vote.

Dave

The point I was trying to make was simple; many voters just vote...no rhyme, no reason, no intelligent thought, no comprehension...they vote only because a politician has a D or and R after their names, they're handsome, their ugly, I like the way he or she speaks...little intelligence is used in their decision.

And it was our Founders who established laws regarding federal elections. No matter what a state decided, they all at the time had only so many electors as the states all agreed to such a system. I haven't checked the stats but I would bet early elections allowed maybe 10 to 20% of a states population to vote. And the decisions then regarding voting rights had some legitimacy...except excluding women which was just a religious/sexist thing.

Again, I'm not sayinmg all eligible citizens should not have the right to vote...the problem is, many people do not cast a ballot based upon relevant evidence and accurate facts and sadly, nearly 50% of people don't even bother to vote in national elections.

S/F Gordon
_______________________________________________

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by uh34d:


(No one denies a democracy is better than the rest. But remember, a democracy has always degenerated into chaos once its citizens realize they can feed at the trough of largess provided by its elected officials. There isn't a Congressmen out there who doesn't return to his constituents at election time and not tell them about the vast amounts of money they have brought back to them for their use...even if it is a waste of their own money...no money, no reelection.)

S/F Gordon

The Founders did not set electoral requirments, they left that to the States. And at that time, most of us owned our own farms, and were indeed "property owners."

But that's besides the point. The point of what the Founders did was the US Constitution, a document designed to prevent "momentary passion" from dominating events. Whether a small crowd or a large crowd, it's easy to be dominated by "momentary passions."

We only get into problems when we leave that document behind, and that would be true, no matter how many people vote or don't vote.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by uh34d:
The point I was trying to make was simple; many voters just vote...no rhyme, no reason, no intelligent thought, no comprehension...they vote only because a politician has a D or and R after their names, they're handsome, their ugly, I like the way he or she speaks...little intelligence is used in their decision.

And it was our Founders who established laws regarding federal elections. No matter what a state decided, they all at the time had only so many electors as the states all agreed to such a system. I haven't checked the stats but I would bet early elections allowed maybe 10 to 20% of a states population to vote. And the decisions then regarding voting rights had some legitimacy...except excluding women which was just a religious/sexist thing.

Again, I'm not sayinmg all eligible citizens should not have the right to vote...the problem is, many people do not cast a ballot based upon relevant evidence and accurate facts and sadly, nearly 50% of people don't even bother to vote in national elections.

S/F Gordon
__

What's an "intelligent" voter? John Boltan is a very intelligent man. Would anyone dispute that? In my opinion he's also a damn fool.

My Super isn't too bright - But he's loaded with common sense. If I had to choose as to whom to exclude between these two, it wouldn't be my Super. Half the people don't vote? Evidently they agree with you, and feel unable to choose, or feel that no matter what happens, the choice will be made for them.

Nations get what they deserve. It's not that we have to many voters, or to many dumb voters, it's that we regard our duties as a citizen to be over once we leave the booth.

This kind of attitude occurs in any kind of regime. But overall, broad based Democracies are quicker to rectify errors, than systems where the leadership IS the electorate. Policy makers rarely change their minds and admit their wrong - the average person can and does admit they were wrong, because their not tied into the decision making process.

The more the merrier...

Dave