Skip to main content

That's the message I'm hearing from President Obama.  We'll start leaving in 18 months, after really doing our best.  A new, intelligent strategy, many more resources, and a close-in expiration date.

Is there anyone here who actually expected that the US would leave Afghanistan that soon?  

This whole debate is being framed as "the troop increase".  Why not as "the end of the war?"

Considering the actual and political realities around Afghanistan, war, wars, America, etc, could this be an actually-workable resolution to a gigantic, terrible no-win situation?  

What do you think?  How would you get us out of this war?  

Originally posted to hooper on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:51 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Great point. Many said this would be a second (0+ / 0-)

      Vietnam. They are wrong with a capital(W) we will pull out in 18 months.

      •  I admit I was surprised and pleased (0+ / 0-)

        when he announced a timeline for withdrawing troops. I had not expected that.  

        •  He announced no such timeline (0+ / 0-)

          The word "withdrawal" or "withdraw" is not even in the speech. Here is all he said:

          Every American unit in Afghanistan will be partnered with an Afghan unit, and we will seek additional trainers from our NATO allies to ensure that every Afghan unit has a coalition partner. We will accelerate our efforts to build an Afghan Army of 134,000 and a police force of 82,000 so that we can meet these goals by 2011 - and increases in Afghan forces may very well be needed as our plans to turn over security responsibility to the Afghans go forward....

          Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course. Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable. We'll consistently assess our efforts to train Afghan Security Forces, and our progress in combating insurgents. We will measure the growth of Afghanistan 's economy, and its illicit narcotics production. And we will review whether we are using the right tools and tactics to make progress towards accomplishing our goals.

          Where's the timeline, wishingwell? All we have are impossible goals and "clear metrics" that are still vague to anyone that examines them.

          War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

          by Valtin on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:34:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Out in 18 months ? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    golconda2, Hound Dog, h bridges, tnproud2b

         I'll believe it when I see it.

  •  I'm not naive enough to believe this: (10+ / 0-)

    "Is there anyone here who actually expected that the US would leave Afghanistan that soon?"

    I DON'T believe that we'll be out of Afghanistan in 19 months. Weren't we promised that Guantanamo would be closed?

    Yeah, it's difficult. But pretty easy to get $85 billion to AIG by Friday when they want it. What we ACTUALLY do reveals our priorities. Ignore words; they are usually BS.

    Have we learned nothing?!

    When a government violates the unalienable rights of the people, it loses its legitimacy.

    by Rayk on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:57:01 PM PST

    •  stunning comment. the AIG part. wow. (0+ / 0-)

      you are right. whoa.i'm currently stunned.

      "The Middle Class is Collapsing" Senator B. Sanders

      by UTvoter on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:59:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Daaaaaaaamn. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      0wn, WattleBreakfast

      Excellent point re AIG.

      Thanks.  Now I'm even more depressed.

      I don't want the liberal elite communists socializing my Nazism.

      by Kaili Joy Gray on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:05:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wait, it is easy to get $85 billion (3+ / 0-)

      It's called a wire transfer. It takes a push of a button.

      Moving 100,000 people while under physical threat from a nimble enemy and attempting not to betray a historic commitment to human rights is not easy like a wire transfer.

      Give me liberty, or give me death!

      by salsa0000 on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:07:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Historic commitment to human rights? (4+ / 0-)

        I recommend some reading on how women are treated under the Karzai government. Or how Hamid Karzai got his pal Abdul Rashid Dostom, the murderous warlord and war criminal, back into Afghanistan from Turkey to turn out his voters for the fraudulent election the U.S. has stamped his imprimatur on. Or what's going on in Bagram prison.

        Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:12:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I know a lot about all those things (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          missLotus, wishingwell, math4barack

          It's not as bad as it was under the Taliban. Bagram is a shame that the American people have still not been really exposed to (this is something I really know a lot about and am trying to help fix), but I don't think you seriously believe that our presence in Afghanistan has been a net negative, do you?

          But anyways, I was addressing the facile reference to a wire transfer to AIG. That was too-snarky-by-a-half.

          Give me liberty, or give me death!

          by salsa0000 on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:26:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Agreed about AIG comment. As for ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jyrinx

            ...Afghanistan overall, every person killed in a wedding party bombing probably creates 1000 new enemies.

            Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:32:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  But the Afghan people still hate the Taliban (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              missLotus, wishingwell

              The BBC polled the country and found something like 4% support. As recently as 2007 there was something like 75% support for Western forces. That number is going down, to be sure, and definitely civilian casualties have something to do with that, but I think it's a pretty reasonable guess that it has more to do with the inability to secure the country. It's polling like that that suggests to me that NATO's presence in Afghanistan has been positive thus far. But the decaying polling numbers suggest to me that time is running out and that the Bush policy of taking our extremely limited resources to foist a strong central government from Kabul on the people was a terrible mistake.

              Give me liberty, or give me death!

              by salsa0000 on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:08:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  murderous warlord and war criminal (0+ / 0-)

          Members of the Afghanistan government are so corrupt, and steal and rape so much, that much of the population is longing for the Taliban to come back and restore order. Which was how the Taliban took over the first time, on the promise of running these same crooks out the last time. Unless the people over get some kind of relief from government crime and abuse, the longing for the Taliban to return will only increase.

          Bipartinship means "Yes we can! As long as the Republicans agree to let us."

          by William Domingo on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:30:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is patently, verifiably false (0+ / 0-)

            Hostility to the Taleban remains very strong throughout the country, with only 4% wanting them back, 58% saying the Taleban are the biggest danger to Afghanistan, 90% saying they are opposed to the Taleban and 84% saying that the Taleban are weak or non-existent in their own areas.

            The poll was conducted by the BBC.

            Give me liberty, or give me death!

            by salsa0000 on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:36:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Taliban support (0+ / 0-)

              Here's one from Mar 2007, almost three years ago, that says support was growing even then. How do think the Taliban can move around and evade the American troops without being informed on by the population if they're so hated? And it also says many Afgahns won't admit to supporting the Taliban to western poll takers.

              Canadian troops are facing another challenge in Afghanistan as Taliban support among civilians has rocketed to nearly 27 per cent.

              The findings stem from a large-scale survey conducted this month by Brussels-based thinktank Senlis Council. The organization polled 17,000 Afghan men in the Canadian-controlled areas of Kandahar province and in neighbouring British and U.S.-controlled regions of Helmand and Nangarhar.

              Surveyors said the real figure is likely higher than the 27 per cent figure, since some respondents were probably hesitant of admitting support for the Taliban to a Westerner.

              http://www.ctv.ca/...

              Bipartinship means "Yes we can! As long as the Republicans agree to let us."

              by William Domingo on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:48:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Even if this number is right.. (0+ / 0-)

                ..it's still just 27%. And that in the Taliban strongholds of Helmand and Kandahar (that's where the poll you cite was conducted, unlike the national poll that I cited). Sorry man, the deep unpopularity of the Taliban is not even controversial among people who follow Afghanistan.

                Give me liberty, or give me death!

                by salsa0000 on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:59:38 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Taliban strongholds of Helmand and Kandahar (0+ / 0-)

                  Of course the Taliban will always be hated outside Pashtun areas of the country, because the Taliban is a Pashtun movment and discriminates against non-Pashtuns. But within the Pashtun areas of the country (most of Afghanistan), the Taliban is seeing increasing support with each passing year because of government corruption. If they want to do something about support for the Taliban, they better quit propping up a corrupt Afghan government there.

                  Several factors do not bode well for the Karzai government’s tenuous hold on power. The Karzai government is increasingly unpopular throughout the country, despite its attempts to build support with various giveaway programs, such as free seed distribution. It is widely seen as corrupt and having embraced the very warlords who pillaged the country in the lawless years preceding the Taliban and impotent in the face of rising terrorist violence

                  The war criminals of the post-Soviet period have gone unpunished; indeed, many of the worst offenders are now members of the current local, provincial or national administrations. This has angered the population, sowing mistrust and bitter disillusionment that yet another corrupt, predatory regime has replaced the last. The Afghan National Police is part of the problem; ill trained and badly paid, they are notorious for preying on the citizens they are supposed to protect. Security is a problem throughout the country, and getting worse in the east and southeast. Insurgents attack the population, government and international peacekeeping forces. The police are widely seen as incompetent and corrupt, allowing criminal behavior to increase and perpetrating a fair amount of it themselves. Police, like bandits, are said to stop trucks hauling produce to market and order them to pay "taxes" and bribes before they can continue.  

                  Bipartinship means "Yes we can! As long as the Republicans agree to let us."

                  by William Domingo on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:19:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  But even in Helmand they're unpopular (0+ / 0-)

                    Your own poll makes that clear. They happen to be a lot less unpopular there (which is not surprising), but still unpopular.

                    That said, the most underreported part of the new strategy does hit on your concern: we won't just be turning this over to Kabul, but instead will work with the tribes directly. As the president said:

                    We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens.

                    This is what will get us out eventually. A political accomodation. That's a breathtaking change from the naive flag-waving pablum we got from the previous government.

                    Give me liberty, or give me death!

                    by salsa0000 on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:30:32 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Everyone hates Taliban (0+ / 0-)

                      Ok buddy, you're right. Everything in Afghanistan is peaches and cream and the Taliban don't have a chance.

                      Bipartinship means "Yes we can! As long as the Republicans agree to let us."

                      by William Domingo on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:40:34 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Aww, don't be like that (0+ / 0-)

                        The Taliban have a chance but only if we are dumb enough to actually put all our eggs in the Kabul basket. The central government alone is not and will not be the answer to this problem, especially in the south of the country where the Taliban has the potential - the potential, mind you - to become positively popular if the status quo continues. But for now pretty much everyone does hate the Taliban and so there's hope for us to do good by the Afghan people.

                        Give me liberty, or give me death!

                        by salsa0000 on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:54:00 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

        •  Heh - wish I could say what I do (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          math4barack

          I am still a bit uncomfortable outing myself so I'm not going to do it here, but I do have pretty senior volunteer leadership positions, one of which exactly deals with some of these issues, in a very large international human rights organization.

          Give me liberty, or give me death!

          by salsa0000 on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:31:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Would outing yourself jeopardize your ... (0+ / 0-)

            ...job or endanger you or people around you? Because, if not, I am sure Kossacks would love to hear your perspective, with some real-life examples. Kim O'Connor is an aid worker in Afghanistan who posts here under her own name fairly often.

            Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:34:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  This probably won't give away too much (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Meteor Blades, missLotus, math4barack

              I am on the steering committee that guides Amnesty International USA's work on detainee and counterterrorism policy and I'm an alternate member of the national board of directors. Of course everything I say here is my own opinion (in fact a lot, maybe even most, of my colleagues would disagree with a good deal of it!) and since Amnesty treasures its non-partisanship I hesitate opening up about my role on a partisan blog. But I figure you should know where I'm coming from so there it is!

              Give me liberty, or give me death!

              by salsa0000 on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:56:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  The point is about EFFORT. We're actually ADDING (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WattleBreakfast

        troops and talking (and I assure you, lying) about removing them. When was the last time ANY president kept a promise to remove troops and end a war.

        I'll give you a hint: Eisenhower in Korea. Nobody else since had the guts to do the right thing about an immoral an unnecessary war.

        Sorry, but escalating a stupid, evil and actually criminal war isn't any more defensible when a democrat does it.

        When a government violates the unalienable rights of the people, it loses its legitimacy.

        by Rayk on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:12:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You assure us? Really? Of course we'll be later (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wishingwell

          than we want.  And leaders often don't meet deadlines.  But I don't really care if it's 18 months or 20, or 24.  I'd always rather earlier, but what's really important is the fact of it:  We're leaving!

          •  Think later than 2012... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            golconda2, jorogo, WattleBreakfast

            Longer isn't just worse. It means more maimed and dead. This isn't an abstraction; its about real people, real lives and, unfortunately, real maimed and broken bodies. And real death.

            When a government violates the unalienable rights of the people, it loses its legitimacy.

            by Rayk on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:24:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you for seeing the lives that will be lost. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              golconda2

              How high does the pile of corpses of innocent people get in 18 months of buildup, and how much higher before the buildup is finally withdrawn?

              Does it's weight extinguish the sorrow and outrage of the families who bury their dead?

              Does it's cost bring economic recovery to those who cannot afford healthcare, or to care for the children left without their mom or dad?

              Does it's stench overwhelm the odor of profit-driven militarism?

              Does it's shadow darken the ideals of humanitarianism?

              Does it's horror absolve our leaders' misdeeds?

              "All war is stupid" - JFK

              by jorogo on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:18:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  How do you know he's lying about (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wishingwell, hooper, math4barack

          removing the troops?

          "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

          by zenbassoon on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:30:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Obama invoked Eisenhower tonight (0+ / 0-)

          he actually quoted from the Farewell Address.

          When a black man named Hussein quotes the Farewell Address in neocon-occupied West Point you have to believe that something is afoot, no?

          Shorter Obama: f@#* the neocons and all they stand for.

          by Paul Goodman on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:35:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  He didn't use this Ike quote: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            golconda2

            "Every gun that it made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms
            is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

            or:

            "Dollars and guns are no substitutes for brains and will power"

            "All war is stupid" - JFK

            by jorogo on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:23:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  The diarist certainly hasn't learned anything (5+ / 0-)

      Obama could have said he'll win the war by having the Taliban abducted by UFOs and they'd clap at what a creative, outside-the-box solution the President had come up with.

      •  Hi Joe, from the diarist. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        math4barack

        Given that we know Obama has a plan of some sort, what is it?

        Well, he has to have figured some way that seems to offer the best chance of success, without a tremendous potential risk.

        So why do you think he's doing what he's doing?  Monster?  Traitor?  Betrayor?  Plotting your demise?

        I'd guess that he's trying to figure it out.  And, given that, that he's got a plan and that this speech (and it's predictable reactions) is just a part of the plan.

        So what is the plan?  I don't know, but I can hear what he tells us.  Out soon, but first do our best to do right by Afghanistan.

        Not too bad so far.

        •  Joe needs his bottle (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          math4barack

          and a diaper change.

          Shorter Obama: f@#* the neocons and all they stand for.

          by Paul Goodman on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:35:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Why is he doing it? (0+ / 0-)

          What makes sense now, from a U.S. imperialist point of view? Just look at the map. Realize that Afghanistan has no products the U.S. corporate world wants or needs. During the Cold War, Iran, Iraq, Turkey sometimes played crucial roles in U.S. geostrategic thinking but Afghanistan was practically conceded to the Soviet camp even before 1978. It only acquired significance as a Cold War battleground when U.S. strategists realized  (in Brzezinski’s words) that they could "bleed the Soviets...the way they did us in Vietnam." More recently, it has acquired significance as U.S. energy corporations do global battle with the Russians over access to Caspian Sea natural gas.

          At present Europe is dependent on the supply of gas via Russia from the Caspian Sea, principally from Turkmenistan. This gives Moscow enormous political leverage when it comes to such matters as NATO’s decision to admit Georgia or Ukraine. U.S. policy has been to build pipelines from the Caspian avoiding Russia or Iran. Construction of the TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India) pipeline which will pump the gas straight to the Indian Ocean and on to world markets has been long delayed due to the fighting in Afghanistan.

          The pipeline will run through Helmand province, then into Pakistan’s Balochistan. If it all works out, this will represent a highly significant improvement in the geostrategic position of the U.S. in the region, including in the event of another world war (such as might be provoked by a U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and unpredictable repercussions of such action).

          http://www.counterpunch.org/...

          Besides, all those mercenaries on our payroll have families to provide for.

  •  I think this is really weird. (21+ / 0-)

    You're now the second person to write a diary saying how great it is that we'll be out in 18 months.

    That's not what I heard.

    I heard the president say we will begin to leave in 18 months.

    There is a huge difference between beginning to leave and being out.

    I don't want the liberal elite communists socializing my Nazism.

    by Kaili Joy Gray on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:57:32 PM PST

    •  Exactly right. (4+ / 0-)

      I wish he'd said we would be out in 18 months.  Or even 24.

      Grab a mop or shut up, dammit!

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:59:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with this. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      math4barack
    •  begin to leave in 18 months (5+ / 0-)

      It's even worse than that. He said troops would begin to leave in 18 months "depending on conditions on the ground". I've come to find out you always have to keep an eye out for weasel-words from him. Remember how he bragged that he could make people see in him what they wanted to see? It's like that tale of the blind men who each touch a different part of the elephant and all insist the elephant is like the part they touched.

      Bipartinship means "Yes we can! As long as the Republicans agree to let us."

      by William Domingo on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:11:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's What Everybody Heard (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Angry Mouse

      but maybe did not listen to.

      At an unknown cost.

      $30B expended in Afghanistan this year alone to conduct the war -- without the escalation.  How much more per year will the escalation cost us?  $1T+/- spent since the wars began nearly 8 years ago in both theaters.

      "Give me but one firm spot to stand, and I will move the earth." -- Archimedes

      by Limelite on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:17:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  These OUT In 18 Months! diaries are da FAIL! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      golconda2, tnproud2b, Jyrinx

      Major league fail.

      A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

      by Hound Dog on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:28:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not only will it be 18 months (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      golconda2

      to begin withdrawal, but that's after a continuous buildup during those 18 months, a much more difficult position from which to withdraw than we have now.

      "All war is stupid" - JFK

      by jorogo on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:27:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Did you read even the title of the diary? (0+ / 0-)

      Please quote any specifc part of this short diary that says that we will be out of Afghanistan in 18 months.

      Really disappointing to see this flailing from otherwise usually thorough people.

      The fact is that the President announced a withdrawal that starts in 18 months. That is stunning given the current meme that tries to escalate the escalation of troops into Obama's political Waterloo. He also increased troops there in the interim and it's obvious to those who want to be objective that that's the best compromise so that no matter what happens after the US withdrawal at least a final attempt was made to try and beat the enemy in Afghansitan and try to help the people of Afghanistan to have some semblance of stability. Leaving without any further attempt to stabilise things in Afgahistan would be cowardly and irresponsible.

      Just in case, the Iraq Surge worked because with out it it wouldn't have been possible for US troops to leave Iraq Urban areas without total chaos erupting. So sue me.

      I am a progressive non-pacifist. If I was pacificist Mandela would never have been released from prison.

  •  reading comprehension fail (15+ / 0-)

    obama didn't say they'd be out in 18 months, he said he'd consider beginning the process of withdrawal, based on conditions on the ground and advice from the generals, beginning in 2011. that's chock full o' weasel words.

    surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

    by wu ming on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:59:11 PM PST

  •  You're right, I was unclear. Same point, though. (0+ / 0-)

    I'll try to change the title.  

    Does someone know how to do this?  Thanks.

  •  Answering your question: what did you think? (0+ / 0-)

    I'm going to feel sick to my stomach every time I stare back at those young eyes in the photos of the young soldiers killed in Afghanistan, here on DKos' diaries or at the end of PBS's News Hour.

  •  If you want Obama's gambit to succeed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, hooper, zizi

    you continue to lament and moan the "surge" so as to convince the average idiot that Obama is a "tough guy" who doesn't "cut and run" etc.

    In reality, this is a phony surge and we will be out of there starting in 18 months (if not sooner).

    Just look at the sour pusses and the seething hatred of the neocons.

    If this were an actual neocon policy, they would be ebullient!

    Instead they are wailing and gnashing their teeth!

    Obama has just rhetorically equated winning, America, and apple pie with getting out in 18 months.

    Now, when the average American dolt says "Obama wants to win. Me too." What he is actually saying is that he supports getting out.

    I want to "win". You want to "win" too. Get it?!?

    I wish I didn't have to spell it out...

    Shorter Obama: f@#* the neocons and all they stand for.

    by Paul Goodman on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:32:24 PM PST

  •  Blowing Smoke (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jorogo, Jyrinx

    what was said is that after 18 months they might begin pulling some troops out.

    There is no timeline, no defined number of troops involved, will depend upon 'the condition on the ground' (where have I heard that one before?) and enough wiggle-room to cover just about anything.  

    They could just pull out a tiny number then and call it a promise fulfilled, even if tens of thousand stay for years more.

    •  Brush up on 'Chaosistan', the Biden Plan (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, golconda2

      and actually look at the recent defense budget.

      It lays it out quite clearly, we are going towards a robotic military.

      The humans are getting out even while war continues.

      You are trying to convince people that we will never get out because having a bunch of humans there is what serves the MIC.

      How wrong you are; the MIC doesn't give a shit about humans any more. They've moved on.

      Shorter Obama: f@#* the neocons and all they stand for.

      by Paul Goodman on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:41:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You are assuming Obama's a coniving liar to (0+ / 0-)

      write this. Well maybe not a liar, but he might as well be.  Scheming and deceptive, at least.

      I don't see it that way.

      What you seem to see as a scheming person trying to fool & betray you, I see as someone trying to do good, amidst horrible cirumstances.

      Why not?

  •  You are asuming Obama's (0+ / 0-)
  •  If Obama was still a Senator (0+ / 0-)

    he wouldn't support this troop surge in Afghanistan.

  •  Why not "the end of the war"? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    golconda2, tnproud2b, Jyrinx

    Because it's a proposal for the beginning of the end of the war, that's why.

    18 months to ramp up to a point making withdrawal harder and longer than it would be now, and no proposal for an end date sounds more like, "no end in sight".

    "All war is stupid" - JFK

    by jorogo on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:12:17 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site