Morning Feature: The Science Behind the Strategy

I didn't like President Obama's speech last night, but I'm willing to support the strategy he proposes. I didn't hear what I wanted to hear, but I heard what I needed to hear. There is some good science behind the strategy he's proposed, and while I'm not certain it's the option I'd have chosen were I in his position, neither am I certain I'd have chosen differently.

More below the fold....

The Science Behind the Strategy

There's been a lot of political and ideological evaluation of President Obama's speech last night, but precious little in the way of science. As a "reality-based community" who are proud of our commitment to empirical inquiry, I thought it might be worth sharing the science behind President Obama's strategy:

Dr. Gourley's data show we have exactly the wrong force size in Afghanistan, and have had since 2003. Our current force allows insurgent groups to be too powerful to control with law enforcement techniques, yet too numerous to agree with us or each other on a negotiated peace. The data are clear: maintaining the current force size guaranteed a perpetual, slow bleed. President Obama was factually correct in saying we cannot maintain the status quo.

That left two options: "get out and damn the consequences," or "get big enough to change the mathematics of the conflict." A larger force compels the insurgencies to respond in one of two ways:

1. Fragment into more-but-smaller groups who can better hide from a military force, but who can better be controlled using law enforcement techniques. If that happens, we start bringing our troops home in 2011.

2. Coalesce into fewer-but-larger groups who can better fight it out with larger military units, but who then have fewer leaders with whom we and the Afghan government need negotiate a political solution. Again, if that happens and we negotiate sensibly, we can start bringing our troops home in 2011.

President Obama decided "get out and damn the consequences" was the worse of those two options. I'm not certain I agree with him, but neither am I certain I disagree. I don't have enough specific information to agree or disagree with the certainty that many here have expressed. I wish I did, one way or the other.

But there is some sound science behind increasing our force size. This is not, as some have speculated, merely "another three Friedman Units." And it's not "servile, gutless cowardice." It was a decision I wouldn't want to be forced to make, and while I didn't hear what I wanted to hear last night, I did hear a decision informed by science ... and a keen awareness that some in that auditorium would die because of his decision.

It wasn't what I wanted to hear, but it was what I needed to hear.

•  Tips for science. :)

  Reasonable people may reasonably disagree with which of "get out and damn the consequences" or "change the mathematics of the conflict" was the least-bad option. There were no good options.

  As always, ::smooooochies:: to Kula, and ::hugggggs:: to the Kula Krew!

  by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:30:37 AM PDT

  •  Apologies to webranding.

    webranding, if your diary is ready and you want to post, please go ahead. I wasn't sure if work got in the way again, had written essentially this same diary in comments to other diaries this morning, and wanted to be sure a Morning Feature was posted by 7.30am.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:34:17 AM PDT

    •  Beat me to the punch. I can

      take tomorrow if you want. I do need the word cloud, how do I make it come up like yours?

      by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:47:48 AM PDT

      •  I can email that to you.

        Email me at janf-kos at hotmail dot com.

        It comes in a little .txt file because if I email the html it tries to execute it.

        by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:02:52 AM PDT

      •  Yes, tomorrow please, FWG.

        I can't be around to tend tomorrow's Morning Feature, as I have to drive both Springoff the Fourth and Springoff the Fifth. If you can post your diary tomorrow, I would be very grateful. :)

        Good morning! ::hugggggs::

        by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:41:39 AM PDT

        •  Will do. Have fun. n/t

          by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:10:43 AM PDT

  •  You have perfectly summed up my reaction

    although I didn't think of it in terms of science.  My husband was at a meeting and didn't hear the speech, but when he came home and asked me about it I said, "I don't know whether he's right or not."  I wish we could just get out now, but I'm not at all sure that's the best choice.  I'm not sure that President Obama made the right choice either.  I DO beleive that after carefully examining all of the alternatives, he made what he believed was the best choice.  I guess that will have to do for now.

    I, too, lack the certainty that so many people seem to have about this.  But maybe that's appropriate in a situation in which there really ARE no good choices.

    by platypus216 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:43:39 AM PDT

    •  this sums up where I'm sitting, too

      My heart says get out... but what does my heart know about the realities in Afghanistan?

      I know next to nothing about military science.  I am hoping that the people who do made some good analysis and predictions, and that the plan will have the intended results.

      by Dem in the heart of Texas on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:10:29 AM PDT

      •  Listening to President Obama last night, I felt

        like his heart wasn't in it either. He sounded weary. Unlike Bush's soaring rhetoric when talking in front of the military, President Obama just sounded spent -- I believed him when he said that he understands what he is asking of these men and women before him, of all the military families. He has met with them, stood by the graves, stood with the families as the coffins passed by...

        If nothing else, I came away from that speech feeling like President Obama really did consider this from every different direction. I don't agree with his choice, but I certainly don't have all the information that he has. I'm sad for him.

        by theKgirls on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:21:14 AM PDT

        •  I felt that, too, Kgirls

          And he picked a difficult venue.  From now on when he signs those letters to families, he's going to know that death was on HIS head.  He seemed so aware of it as he looked out over those young faces.

          None of Bush's stupid sloganeering, just a heavy-hearted realization of the consequences.

          Am I happy about this decision?  No.  But I honestly believed he chose what he believed to be the best and only option left to him.  

          More huggs!

          by winterbanyan on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:29:01 AM PDT

        •  You might appreciate my diary...

          ...from last night:

          Why it's different when President Obama says it

          by Eclectablog on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:30:02 AM PDT

          •  thank you for the link

            Very good diary...

            It's different when Obama says is it because he doesn't glory in being a "war president". Unlike his predecessor, he doesn't wear that mantle gladly.

            I trust him. I trust he's making the best decision on the path forward through this situation in which there are no "good" choices.

            I agree with you here -- I always feel like Bush was that six yr old boy with his plastic soldiers. He had no idea of the consequences of his actions nor did he care about the human cost, he just wanted to knock over everyone else's soldiers. He reveled in war.

            So very odd for a man who refused to go fight one.

            by theKgirls on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:39:00 AM PDT

      •  Doesn't it seem like we are trying to rationalize

        ...Obama's decision about Afghanistan and reframe it 180 degrees from how we felt about it when it was George Bush's policy?

        It's confusing and to me, it seems amoral. We have to feel that Obama is doing the moral thing, and to me, that's hard to do. We had no trouble as a community knowing that Bush/Cheney were immoral.

        I think putting aside that with which our hearts are wrestling and changing the discussion to military "science" is unsettling. It doesn't make it right if the tactics are better, or at least better articulated, than with Bush. This is not to disparage this diary's discussion of military science, but while some tactics are clearly effective and thus important, it is no more a science than is economics.

        And on a practical note, who is doing the military planning but many of the same generals that were around in the Bush days? Another similarity with our current economic/finance insiders.

        Will this community be distracted around the question "can we win"? Or will we define what winning is. I live in NY and we just had a guy in Queens who was planning an 'event' in the city. Tell me how any of this makes sense, except politically? Will having 100K soldiers in Afghanistan and sending drones into Pakistan make the nuclear weapon problem in that country better? I feel saddened and sickened.

        by DorothyT on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:37:45 AM PDT

        •  we are rationalizing

          the parallels to what our choices were in Viet Nam is stunning.

          remember hearing of the domino effect?
          remember hearing of the red peril?  (Chinese nukes)

          substitute Iraq to Afghanistan to Pakistan
          substitute Muslim takeover of the world  (Pakistan's nukes)

          LBJ declined to run for re-election when he realized his best of the bad choices went sour.

          sorry, I don't hold any hope this time around either.

          Communists took over Viet Nam and failed miserably.
          China is a different kind of threat.

          by njr on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:47:40 AM PDT

        •  Understanding the rationale ...

          ... is not the same as rationalizing. And if we become a community who follow our "hearts" and don't want to hear about "science" that contradicts our moral beliefs ...

          ... how are we different from conservative religious ideologues who reject evolution, global climate change, stem cell research, etc.?

          Good morning! ::hugggggs::

          by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:50:20 AM PDT

          •  When the 'heart hurts,' sometimes it just means

            that it isn't listening to the head. I'm saddened when people don't listen to their own instincts about matters that are important to them. I'm alarmed when well meaning people feel that those in power must know more than they do, so their judgment or their instincts must be trumped.

            I don't believe we give a pass to President Obama or General Chrystal because they must know more than we do about war and when it's necessary. And I do believe that they were dealt a bad hand by Bush Inc.

            We need to keep all our decisionmakers' feet to the fire when we believe they are following the wrong path.

            I don't accept the linear thinking approach in the response above. Left brain good/right brain bad. Each informs the other.  

            by DorothyT on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:23:52 AM PDT

            •  I understand your point

              and I'm a big proponent of listening to the "heart" or instinct or whatever side of the brain that is.  

              In this case, however, I know that my heart is against it because my natural instinct is an anti-war one.   In the case of Iraq, however, it was clear to me from the beginning that Bush wanted to go in for his own reasons and was making it about 9/11 on false pretenses.   I felt justified in listening to my instincts, because they matched what my rational brain was seeing.

              In this case, my rational brain can see pros and cons, and I can also see that my knowledge about the region barely scratches the surface of what (presumably) our leadership knows.   My instincts also tell me that Obama doesn't have an ulterior motive there, so I'm more inclined to wait and watch and see how it comes out.  

              I guess you could even say that my instincts play more into my stance on this than my rational brain does.  It was nice to read this diary and see that there are rational reasons why this might not be another Viet Nam or Iraq.

              by Dem in the heart of Texas on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:06:19 AM PDT

              •  Why are we there?

                Please know that this is not a rhetorical or snotty question.

                You write:

                It was nice to read this diary and see that there are rational reasons why this might not be another Viet Nam or Iraq.

                I may be wrong but I take it that you mean that the circumstances on the ground are not the same as in Vietnam or Iraq. If that's true, that gets to the question of whether we can 'win.'

                But first we have to answer why we are there. And we have to keep asking it to ourselves rather than getting caught up in all the military strategy details. Win what?

                On a personal note, I'm of the generation that watched the Vietnam war as it unfolded on TV every day. I think Americans would have rejected the Iraqi war much sooner, and thus this Afghanistan war, if Bush & Co. had allowed all of us to see the horrors of that war on our soldiers and the Iraqi people who were stranded in combat areas. No draft, no pain. No taxes to pay for it, easy to look the other way. We are not engaged -- and informed -- as we were during the Vietnam War.

                by DorothyT on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:34:45 AM PDT

                •  we were better informed

                  but as I watch reports of the thinking in the sixties we as the American public were also badly misinformed...
                  the protests against the Viet Nam war were very slow to grow, we were shooting our own at Kent State and watching Budhists monks light themselves on fire before Americans in general started asking questions, instead of accepting Pentagon reports

                  ie:  The Pentagon Papers,  and Daniel Ellsburg's reporting...

                  Today I'm afraid we need to substitute HISTORY instead of SCIENCE when we decide to move ahead.            My view is that the science given Obama today is the same science given to LBJ...

                  by njr on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:42:06 AM PDT

                •  I remember

                  I remember listening to the news on the radio at bedtime.  The French were getting shellacked by the Viet Minh.  Again:

                  But first we have to answer why we are there.

                  by Jim W on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:51:05 AM PDT

          •  Come on now. The "science" is based on there

            being an end result from the science applied. And what would that result be? The insurgents quit? Those pushing the radicalism in the tribal areas of Pakistan suddenly throw up their hands and say "Oh, forget it."

            Or are we talking about applying this "science" generation after generation? Because I don't see how the hearts and minds of the people living in the hinterlands of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are going to be that much changed by the 'science of warfare' by 2011. In fact, it may be that much more radicalized.

            With all due respect, the lives of many American military people and 'collateral' civilians around the world are on the line while this experiment plays out.

            by Pescadero Bill on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:31:36 AM PDT

            •  The science is based on ...

              ... the alpha value of insurgencies that drag on indefinitely versus the alpha values of those that have resolved into negotiated solutions or dwindled into law enforcement operations. It presumes that, given conditions that are more favorable for peace, people find ways to not have bullets flying around their homes.

              As I see it, that's a reasonable presumption.

              Good morning! ::hugggggs::

              by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:59:36 AM PDT

              •  OK, now let's apply that to the

                peoples of that region. You really think anything we do between now and 2011 will change their resolve?

                It's completely unrealistic and I can only presume Obama is in reality, and secretly putting in enough troops to safeguard our withdrawal.

                Otherwise, it's tantamount to absolute folly.

                by Pescadero Bill on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:21:56 AM PDT

              •  "Science" + "presumption"

                in the same analysis = total lack of awareness of what science is.

                by jorogo on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 09:25:57 AM PDT

    •  There's no shame in lacking certainty ...

      ... when a situation is this uncertain. I wish I knew enough specific information to be more certain that President Obama made the least-bad choice, or to be certain that he did not. I don't. I've tried to understand it as best I can, based on what I've learned about counter-insurgencies and the mathematics of how insurgencies fester. And I'm convinced that President Obama and his national security team are at least as well-informed on this as I am, both generally and specifically.

      I didn't hear what I wanted to hear, but I heard what I needed to hear.

      Good morning! ::hugggggs::

      by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:46:22 AM PDT

      •  Back up a bit?

        Before getting into the mechanics of this war, how do you answer the primary question: Should the U.S. be at war in Afghanistan, with whom, and why?

        by DorothyT on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:34:01 AM PDT

        •  too late for that question. n/t

          by winterbanyan on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:54:56 AM PDT

          •  If we stop asking that question...

            then we lose our moral compass and are but lemmings. History abounds with peoples who behaved as lemmings.

            by DorothyT on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:16:10 AM PDT

            •  Tora Bora can be looked upon as the lost

              opportunity.  

              Unlike Bush, I think if ever Obama finds that cave OBL is in, it will be converted to dust, ASAP.

              by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:28:31 AM PDT

              •  Ding ding ding. You got that bbg

                And that is the big difference.

                Bush kept OBL "in play" so he could hype up the war in Iraq he had been wanting since he got appointed President.

                I do not see Obama ever doing something like that.

                by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:50:46 AM PDT

            •  Missing the point.

              We don't get to turn the clock back to 2001 and decide again whether to undertake military operations in Afghanistan. That moment came and went. We're here now, with the problems and the solution set we face now. "We shouldn't be there," while arguable true, is factually irrelevant. We are there. The question now is how to get out with the least damage to ourselves and the Afghan people.

              Good morning! ::hugggggs::

              by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:02:12 AM PDT

              •  Actually,

                We DO get to decide again whether to undertake military options in Afghanistan. I know I do, though I doubt my decision holds much leverage.

                And President Obama  announced his decision on that matter just last night. Or didn't you hear?

                This diary alleged to be about science. Your presumptions, other than being wrong, are out of place in this discussion.

                by jorogo on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 09:32:23 AM PDT

    •  Lack of certainty

      is an essential component of practicing good science.

      by Heart of the Rockies on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:24:31 AM PDT

      •  I agree 100%.

        And I wish we in the science-and-reality-based community would practice that a bit more often.

        Good morning! ::hugggggs::

        by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:26:45 AM PDT

        •  That sounds awfully certain to me n/t

          by leberquesgue on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:32:45 AM PDT

      •  True. Achieving certainty

        Yet achieving certainty is the goal of science, a goal which is best achieved prior to publishing your analysis.

        by jorogo on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 09:35:55 AM PDT

        •  Agree it is the goal

          but certainty is always less than 100% and usually is bound by confidence intervals and other considerations.  As you say, all this is definitely best considered prior to publishing.  Yes indeedy.

          by Heart of the Rockies on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 01:15:16 PM PDT

    •  I'm

      with you too.  Want us to get out, but not sure if getting out right now is the right choice.  I hope the President did make the right choice...we will know soon enough.  

      http://www.thehamandlegsshow.com

      by jham710 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:40:50 AM PDT

  •  Good analysis.. but increase should be larger

    I don't see how sending 30k more troops does much of anything.. especially since by the time you get them all in place you have stated up front you will be pulling them out.

    All this will do will drive them into Pakistan, which will piss off and make life miserable for the Pakistanis.  Then, when we leave, they will come back over the border again into Afghanistan.

    My choice would have been "get out and damn the consequences", because the consequences are the same in the long run anyway.. we are just pushing the same outcome down the road a year or so.

    by Skeptical Bastard on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:18:24 AM PDT

    •  You are assuming

      that we remain the only player.  Pakistan is starting a push.  And once we circumvent Karzai and go to the provinces, we may get a totally different action from the people there.

      There are other players in this, and it was to those players that Obama pointed, quite pointedly, last night.

      by winterbanyan on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:50:20 AM PDT

    •  Larger increase was not possible.

      We simply don't have the troops for a larger increase, along the lines of the 400,000 called for by U.S. Army counterinsurgency doctrine. On the other hand, President Obama is not trying to win a military victory over an insurgency, as that doctrine aims to achieve. He's trying to create conditions favorable for a U.S. withdrawal that will not leave the Afghan people in a state of war, i.e.: a law enforcement and/or political solution to the insurgencies.

      Good morning! ::hugggggs::

      by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:53:16 AM PDT

      •  This begs to ask the question...

        In order to continue our rate of military involvement, should we not reconsider bringing back the draft.  Too few military personnel and their families are being asked to carry too great a burden.  Our military is almost at the point of exhaustion and I personally think it is unfair that the burden is not spread among the population more equitably.

        I wonder if the decision to prolong our involvement in Afghanistan would be different if we had reinstated the draft a couple of years ago.

        by gulfgal98 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:13:18 AM PDT

        •  Aha!

          Now you have discovered why Bush & Cheney were so politically eager to kick the can down the road, in Afghanistan (and Iraq).  It's hard to definitively 'win' the conflicts without larger numbers of troops.  Instituting a draft is political suicide, especially since Viet Nam.  Bushco was never, ever, ever going to institute a draft - no matter how badly it might have been needed to accomplish the stated goals.

          by AnnCetera on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:13:25 AM PDT

        •  I waffle on the draft.

          Like you, I think too few bear too much as things currently stand. But I'm not convinced a draft would not create a "we have this bigger military so we have to use it to justify its existence" dynamic. That isn't a clear answer, but it's not a clear situation.

          Good morning! ::hugggggs::

          by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:17:43 AM PDT

          •  My point was not the numbers, but the burden

            IMHO, if we had kept the draft all along, we would have been less likely to have been itching to use military action.  When every family knows that the potential of being touched by war could happen at any time, we are much more cautious about supporting such wars.

            Yes, the draft is political suicide.  But wars are not necessarily political suicide when they are being fought with a volunteer army of someone else's kids.

            by gulfgal98 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:36:34 AM PDT

        •  Recruitment goals are being met

          Exceeded in some of the important branches.

          by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:20:24 AM PDT

          •  Yes, because graduating high-schoolers

            are more desperate now then ever. Especially amongst the poor.

            Once again, the burden of our war mongering is falling heavily upon the poorest of our society.

            That's fucking great ain't it.

            Who here amongst us has had to face a reality of no college, no job after graduating high school? And having a "Be all you can be" Army brochure shoved in your face?

            War is, has always been a racket, much like manufacturing has become - find your workers wherever they're most desperate and profit like crazy.

            This is just getting disgusting and further from progressive values then I've ever imagined.

            I guess the worse possible negative influence on any given movement is a charismatic leader taking that movement in the wrong direction.

            by Pescadero Bill on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:43:52 AM PDT

            •  I saw those recruitment statistics also.

              We have a whole new batch of Jessica Lynchs who have to join the military to have a job.

              by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:53:28 AM PDT

            •  New recruits are more from higher income

              than lower..  (actually mid to middle-high income)

              Check out this link

              by Skeptical Bastard on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:35:39 AM PDT

              •  What am I missing?

                The MHI mark is skewed to the right. Suggesting the the majority is to the left and of lower income then the MHI.

                Similarly, youth in the upper two deciles (top 20% of income) are also under-represented among new Army recruits, and the percentage of recruits coming from such neighborhoods has continued to fall since 2005. In other words youth from low- to middle-median income neighborhoods are over-represented among new Army recruits.

                (Emphasis mine)

                by Pescadero Bill on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 09:36:05 AM PDT

                •  The comment I was replying to

                  stated the military was taking ever poorer recruits:

                  Once again, the burden of our war mongering is falling heavily upon the poorest of our society.

                  That's just not true.. the bulk come from middle income.

                  Depends how you define "poor", for sure.. but I was thinking along the lines of Federal Poverty Levels, which is what the poster was implying, I believe.

                  by Skeptical Bastard on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 11:07:46 AM PDT

      •  a few other points about strategy and tactics:

        1). your and the professor's analysis of possible responses to a troop build-up is not complete. There are LOTS more possibilities. One simple response that isn't included is a smorgasboard effect--that is, a little of response 1 from some groups and a little of response 2 from some other groups. THIS is the complication of war and it's why the answer to this problem is so vexing. It's not a binary answer; and the responses will not be binary either. The problem evolves over time.
        2.) As you mention above, the tactical responses to a troop build-up by the US may result in other players entering and leaving the war theater (and then entering again or leaving again). There are both tactical and logistical problems that very few people outside of the generals conducting the war know nor understand. To understand whether or not the strategy of a 30K troop build-up is a good idea or not requires certain knowledge that we arm-chair commentors don't have. For example, a 30K increase in fighting force may be overwhelming in a situation where the terrain is flat and the enemy force easily surrounded or flanked on all sides. It might be a pitifully small force in terrain that is mountainous, with numerous escape and supply routes. I just don't know the battlefield here, and neither do most commentors.
        Hence: I'm neither convinced the strategy of a 30K build-up is right or wrong. What I do know is that Obama campaigned on increasing our focus on afghanistan before he was elected. I'm not surprised to see that he is following through on his promise.

        by troubador on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:52:51 AM PDT

        •  Iraq seems to have been a "smorgasboard."

          That is, insurgencies coalesced and we bribed or negotiated with them, and what remained fragmented and it seems Iraqi law enforcement are better able to contain them now.

          Yes, there is a third response option: "going to ground," where insurgent groups go into hiding, wait until we leave, and then resume their battles the government and each other. But that strategy may not work for them. Given 24-36 months of comparative calm, the Afghan government may stabilize and win the trust of the Afghan people enough that insurgents can't operate freely and have few recruits. This kind of war is somewhat self-perpetuating, and a 24-36 month pause may be enough to break that cycle.

          Good morning! ::hugggggs::

          by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:21:47 AM PDT

  •  Good Morning Crissie and Krew :)

    And :::::::::::::hugs:::::::::::: to all.

    While I do not agree with your conclusions in today's diary, I am tipping and recommending because of a great analysis and a different perspective you have offered. In a way, I hope you are right and I am wrong.

    My other comments are posted below.

    Good Morning and ::::::::::hugs:::::::::::::

    by gulfgal98 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:30:32 AM PDT

  •  always tips for science

    We watched Charlie and the Chocolate Factory instead last night (the disturbing Tim Burton version) and I haven't seen the speech.

    I'll have to read the transcript when I get the chance today.

    by terrypinder on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:52:50 AM PDT

    •  As noted in the diary, I didn't like the speech.

      I didn't expect to like it, as I knew I wasn't going to hear what I wanted to hear. But I do feel I heard what I needed to hear, and I hope this policy works.

      Good morning! ::hugggggs::

      by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:54:59 AM PDT

      •  reading through the site

        I suspect most people who had made up their minds (as I have) heard what they wanted to hear into it, as will I. I'm always reminded about that diary on confirmation bias I wrote last spring, and then I had confirmation bias confirmed in the comments of that diary. It was actually kind of funny in a science-y sort of way.

        It is going to be tough getting intelligent discussion on this for the next few days.

        by terrypinder on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:56:45 AM PDT

        •  I don't know, we seem to be having a lot of

          pretty intelligent discussion here. And plenty of diversity of opinion, but not a falme in sight. I'm proud of us.

          by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:48:27 AM PDT

          •  this is one of the DKos sanctuaries :)

            by terrypinder on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 11:05:16 AM PDT

            •  I second that, terrypinder

              If we can have reasoned debate about this contentious issue, I suspect we can handle almost anything.

              by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 12:03:13 PM PDT

      •  ok, i've read it.

        (What can I say, I read fast). Anyway, no I didn't like the speech. It wasn't amazing and full of the rhetoric that Obama is known for. But--it was a speech we received from a president with a brain. It was devoid of the happy-talk pablum we got under Bush and his Republican predecessors and simply stated the problem and what we and our allies are going to do about it.

        I still don't support the escalation and won't until I see evidence that it is working and that we will begin withdraw in 2011.

        About the only thing I did agree with is the problem with a nuclear armed and unstable Pakistan. Worst-case scenario is them falling to a Taliban-like regime. Even though such a regime wouldn't have popular support, the thought of their weapons falling into the wrong hands is pretty bad. And unlike Iraq, we KNOW there are weapons of mass-destruction in Pakistan.

        by terrypinder on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:09:24 AM PDT

        •  That summarizes my reaction pretty well.

          It wasn't the speech I wanted to hear, but it was the speech I needed to hear in order to think President Obama has chosen what he believes is the least-bad option. And there were no good options.

          Good morning! ::hugggggs::

          by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:24:05 AM PDT

  •  The more I read this diary, the more

    I realize how important this diary is.  I hope that this diary will stay on the Rec list for a long time today because of the great discussion it has spawned.

    Crissie, you have written some wonderful diaries in the past, but this one is among your best.

    by gulfgal98 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:16:45 AM PDT

    •  Thank you, gulfgal. :)

      I hoped that by focusing on the policy itself, from a scientific perspective, we could get away from the easier but (to me) less useful vitriol about whether President Obama "caved in" to this or that group. The one certain conclusion I took away from his speech is that he analyzed this carefully and chose what he believes is the least-bad option from a range of bad options. There were no good options, and he didn't try to sell this as a good option.

      Good morning! ::hugggggs::

      by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:26:45 AM PDT

  •  You are always the best. Thanks.

    by BrowniesAreGood on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:36:27 AM PDT

    •  Thank you for the kind words. :)

      Good morning! ::hugggggs::

      by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:42:26 AM PDT

•  Welcome to the Krew :)

  Welcome to the Krew!

  We generally observe the following community customs here at MF:

  We always assume best intent from a poster.  Thus if something strikes us as a criticism in some way, we usually tell ourselves that we must have misunderstood.  

  We don't use the eff word (and other such variations) without asterisks, as many have young children who read over our shoulders occasionally.

  And we never falme.  Silence is the reaction of the Krew to something we disapprove of.  It does not indicate approval.  Quite the contrary.

  Hugggs and good morning.  And again, welcome!

  by winterbanyan on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:31:53 AM PDT

  •  Good morning winterbanyan

    This is great!  (I'm assuming you are doing this regularly and I have just missed it, since I am so inconsistent...)

    Huggggggs to you!

    by EJP in Maine on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:21:00 AM PDT

    •  Every day for a week then

      Just on Meta Mondays.  I hope it prevents unwanted culture shock :)

      Hugggs and good morning, EJP!

      by winterbanyan on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:24:20 AM PDT

      •  MF is a special place

        There are days (many of them lately) where this is the only kos site I read. I wouldn't mind seeing WB civility code every day.  And thanks WB

        by addisnana on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:45:46 AM PDT

        •  Thanks, addisnana :)

          But this is not "my" code.  This is the code the Krew has quietly developed over many months.  It arises from the good people here and I take no credit for it.

          Hugggs and good morning!

          by winterbanyan on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:51:57 AM PDT

  •  Good Morning, winterbanyan!

    As always, you are the first to welcome each new person.  Hope you have a great day!  :::::::::hugs::::::::

    by gulfgal98 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:08:24 AM PDT

    •  Good morning, gulfgal :)

      Always a joy to see you!

      Huggs back atcha, and have a great day.

      by winterbanyan on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:20:59 AM PDT

•  Of course, the second

  outcome depends on whether the Taliban are willing to negotiate. Given that the Pashtun are probably the most xenophobic people in Central Asia (which is saying something) I'm not holding my breath, especially since they know they can outlast the US.

  by Dauphin on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:32:58 AM PDT

  •  Well, if it were only the Taliban ...

    ... the negotiation process would be easier. The problem is that there are dozens of insurgencies now operating in Afghanistan: Taliban, tribal chieftains and opium growers vying with the central government, each other, and us. That's far too many cooks in the kitchen to reach a negotiated solution. The structure of the conflict must change.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:36:43 AM PDT

    •  It's a complicating factor to be sure

      ... but what does the USA want other than for these various factions to not support people who are likely to commit terrorist acts?  That's the sort of goal that could be achieved by foreign aid cash and let-the-factions-alone-to-run-themselves policy.

      Once you go beyond that... say, into wanting to set up a democratic republic... you're committing to nation-building which is God-awful expensive and will take decades.  If you don't want to look at Afghanistan post-Soviet occupation, all you need to look at is Iraq to see how crazy it is to try building a nation among a religiously- and ethnically-fractured country.

      The only good thing is that you don't hear the neo-cons bleating about wanting to set up democracies in the area any more.  They've apparently come to figure out the futility of that pipe dream.

      by gsbadj on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:53:37 AM PDT

      •  President Obama said in his speech ...

        ... that his goal is a U.S. withdrawal that will not leave the Afghan people in a state of war. In order to accomplish that, either the insurgencies must get small enough to be controlled by law enforcement, or few enough to reach a negotiated peace. Right now, given their size and number, there is zero chance of either.

        Good morning! ::hugggggs::

        by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:57:56 AM PDT

    •  Guerilla warfare?

      If I were the Taliban, I would choose your option #1 because essentially that is the type, guerilla, warfare they practice now.  Go in fast - get out fast and do as much damage possible in as little time possible.  

      But the major point being made - they can and will out last the US is the huge what if in this scenario.  Someone made the point on TV yesterday, that the military fight wars in order to win, not to be caregivers, mediators, teachers.  Obama proposes a new role unfamiliar to the military and I don't know exactly how that is going to work out.  Only time will tell, I guess.

      by JFinNe on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:57:02 AM PDT

      •  A "go to ground" strategy is not certain either.

        If the insurgencies "go to ground" for the next 24-36 months - sit tight, wait for us to leave, intending to return to fighting with the government and each other once we're gone - they may find that the conditions have changed in the meantime. Given 24-36 months of comparative calm, the Afghan government may be able to win the trust of the Afghan people, who may decide they want no part of the insurgencies.

        Good morning! ::hugggggs::

        by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:00:06 AM PDT

      •  Kennedy's Vietnam strategy

        was to have the US Green Barets do counterinsurgency training.  Kennedy had a vision for a transformed military that could operate in unconventional wars in the third world with a small footprint.  In fact, this is what the Green Berets were invented for, with the Peace Corps as their civilian counterpats.  This was the "ugly American" vision (ugly in the ironic sense of one who got his hands dirty, and operated at the local level to support local community leaders, as opposed to the gliterati who by analogy would be stuck having coctails in Kabul).  It was Johnson who -- realizing that Kennedy's strategy wasn't working -- changed the strategy from teaching to direct combat engagement when it became clear that the corrupt Saigon government's army was incapable of carrying out the counter insurgency strategy. One can only speculate whether Kennedy's choice would have been the same or if he would have chosen to withdraw and d*mn the (political) consequences.

        I doubt if the concept of training is unfamiliar to the military -- it has been the centerpiece of the Iraq surge.  

        That said, I don't like the chances of this working better than it worked in Vietnam.  And like theKgirls above, I feel sad and sensed Obama's sadness.  The funny/horrible thing is that I am old enough to remember Johnson's sadness, too, as he saw Vietnam destroy his vision for the great society.  

        by benr on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:48:22 AM PDT

    •  I hope that Obama's escalation changes the math..

      As the Youtube video mentioned, the goal is to force the Taliban & their allies to change the way they're organized, which will in theory fundamentally change the group dynamics.

      If our strategy change and escalation are successful, either the Taliban groups coalesce into a smaller number of larger groups, meaning we can more easily negotiate with them or blast them with more conventional military tactics, or they fragment into more numerous, smaller groups, meaning they can get mopped up using law-enforcement tactics.  Either way, the violence dissipates, which is what we want.

      I damned well hope this works...

      by meldroc on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:20:28 AM PDT

      •  I hope so too.

        There are no guarantees. But if our objective is, as President Obama stated, a U.S. withdrawal that does not leave the Afghan people in a state of war ... this may be the least-bad strategy for reaching that objective.

        Good morning! ::hugggggs::

        by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:29:09 AM PDT

  •  That "outlast us"

    Is not the point of the message that was delivered.  The message that was delivered was "we're not going to play this game forever."  The money quote was: "We will be your partner not your patron."

    I.e. Afghanistan and Pakistan have been told they have 18 months to get their shite together, and no longer.  We aren't going to stay there endlessly.  If they want peace and security, they're going to have to step up.

    And given I didn't want to get into this war to begin with (unlike most Americans, many of whom are probably bitching today), I can only say, I think this is the only way out that makes sense.

    Hugggs and good morning.

    by winterbanyan on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:38:04 AM PDT

    •  Karzai is probably the worst life

      insurance risk in the world right now.

      by Dauphin on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:39:10 AM PDT

      •  I just listened to a podcast by

        "How Stuff Works" that argued he's been protected by our Delta Force troops for years now, and that this is the most likely reason why he's survived this long.

        It was largely speculative, and embedded in a report titled "How Delta Force Works," and I'm highly skeptical of the possibility, but your comment reminded me of it.

        by Caractacus on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:39:31 AM PDT

    •  I too didn't want to us to go to Afghanistan

      I remember an email that was widely circulated at that time written by a man who had grown up there. My memory of it has faded quite a bit, but it was something about how we say we want to bomb them back to the Stone Age and he said they are already there. He described how destitute the place is and how hopeless its citizens are.

      Afghanistan was not our enemy. It was a group of men hiding there. I was wishing that we could send in special ops to hunt down bin Laden and build schools and roads for Afghans. It was a complete fantasy wish, I know, but I never understood what bombing the country would do.

      I definitely felt like I stood alone. I was so pleased to pass by some protesters in Concord one morning. There were only four people, but I wasn't alone.

      Good morning and huggggs winter...

      by theKgirls on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:55:38 AM PDT

      •  It was a mistake

        I dislike the Taliban for so many reasons, however they were not pressured long enough by an interventionist neo-conservative administration to give us Bin Laden's head on a plate.

        by LaFeminista on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:08:05 AM PDT

        •  It worked in 2001

          In 2001 the Washington Post published this article.  (Sorry if there is a charge for Archives.)

          By Kathy Gannon
          Associated Press Writer
          Sunday, Oct. 14, 2001; 1:50 p.m. EDT

          JALALABAD, Afghanistan –– A senior Taliban leader said Sunday that the Islamic militia would be willing to hand over Osama bin Laden to a third country if the United States halts the bombing of Afghanistan and provides evidence against him.

          President Bush quickly rejected the offer.

          by Jim W on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:21:49 AM PDT

          •  It was indeed

            Bin Laden was a foreigner with admittedly a great deal of financial support. They would have made a deal with the US in the end

            by LaFeminista on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:28:40 AM PDT

      •  I'm considering

        consolidating a bunch of Christmas gifts into a donation to the Central Asia Institute (here) of Greg Mortenson and Three Cups of Tea fame this year.  My only hesitation is that I think I would hate receiving a gift of a donation not of my choosing - but the gang I would gift would be supportive, I think.  (And what a green gift!  No bubble packaging required!)

        I especially appreciate Mortenson's commitment to educate girls - not just because empirical data shows the benefits of doing so are more wide-reaching, but because this is potentially Taliban country.

        And, honestly.  What better gift to all of us but education and light in a darkened corner?

        by Gustogirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:12:01 AM PDT

        •  great idea!

          I bought the book for my daughter and she has been struggling through it (I gave her the youth edition). I think it's too important a story to let her struggle, so I was thinking over Christmas, we would both read it and have our own little book club to discuss it. She's already asked about who should we donate to this Christmas -- and with the new escalation here, I think this is the perfect group to gift... Thanks!

          by theKgirls on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:41:45 AM PDT

•  Top of the Morning (L s D t *)

  (TotM is a featurette of Morning Feature – a meta recap of the previous day’s blogging and a stopping off point for catching your first breath. Feel free to join in or hang out.)

  ---
  *In memory of JG in MD’s Lost Data

  ---
  BREAKING: Coffee Spew Award™ and Top Typo Award™ Temporarily Suspended

  From yesterday’s award ceremony and NCrissieB’s acceptance speech:

  
  ::tap tap thud::
  Umm ... we need a new microphone stand.
  

  We are currently debating replacements including the Prius stand which runs on batteries, the E85 stand that runs on bio-fuel and the Vegetable stand that runs on SVO/WVO (and which can also replenish the relish tray).

  ---

  TotM Top Comment Digest
  From the Top Comments team.

  From the Top Mojo Jar:

  9 History can indeed be harsh. President Obama ... by Meteor Blades - 85

  ---

  Watch for "Where Does Krew Go To Kogitate" (downthread) based on some input from all you alls yesterday.

  ---

  by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:36:47 AM PDT

  •  Chef and the mail room clerk vote for ...

    ... the vegetable stand. Others' opinions are welcome, however.

    Thank you for an excellent TotM, JanF. :)

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:39:22 AM PDT

    •  That was my favorite also because I really

      like raw vegetables and dip.

      Good morning and ::hugggsss:: back.

      by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:58:20 AM PDT

  •  Meteor Blades summary of

    this decision is correct in my opinion

    by LaFeminista on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:46:49 AM PDT

    •  Totally agree! (n/t)

      by gulfgal98 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:36:28 AM PDT

  •  Good news!! The new Vegetable Stand

    came in and we are good to go for tomorrow.

    And I will post the promised "Where Does Krew Go To Kogitate" that seemed very OT this morning.

    by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 11:03:12 AM PDT

•  The science behind not sleeping.

  That's the science I'm interested in. I only slept for TWO HOURS last night.

  I think it was last night...what day is it?

  [HEAR BUGS]

  by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:37:37 AM PDT

  •  It's today ...

    ... because today always follows last night. ::winks::

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:40:26 AM PDT

    •  Well, at least it's not tomorrow.

      'Cause if it was tomorrow, today would be yesterday, and last night would not be yesterday so today would be over and I could sleep.

      Maybe it should be tomorrow.

      by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:48:03 AM PDT

      •  Unless you're in Australia

        It's already tomorrow there. ;-)

        by QuestionAuthority on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:04:09 AM PDT

        •  I thought it was yesterday there.

          Or maybe tomorrow it will be.

          by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:12:32 AM PDT

          •  thats next thursday

            ;-)

            by LaFeminista on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:27:03 AM PDT

            •  That time zone stuff always messes me up

              Thanks for the clarification.

              ;-)

              by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:31:55 AM PDT

        •  LOL, I have a friend in New Zealand

          whose birthday is the day after mine, but we celebrate them both at the same time due to them being 18 hours (?) ahead of us.

          by gulfgal98 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:38:46 AM PDT

          •  If your friend lives on Chatham Island, off the

            coast of NZ, s/he'd be 17 hrs and 15 minutes ahead. Chatham Island is next to the International Dateline and they were the first to welcome the new millinium. But I had to laugh when I saw that they are on a completely different clock than the rest of the world. Really? They are 45 minutes ahead of the rest of NZ? They couldn't take the full hour?

            by theKgirls on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:02:20 AM PDT

            •  I am confused......

              I thought time zones broke in one hour segments.  But then I am blonde.....LOL

              by gulfgal98 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:19:38 AM PDT

              •  Mostly they do.

                But India is 1/2 hour ahead or behind it's neighbors, because the time zone line would run almost perfectly down the middle, and the Indian government must have decided that it made more sense to have the whole nation on the same time than to have halves of the country co-ordinated with unfriendly countries on either side.

                by Calamity Jean on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 09:41:15 AM PDT

  •  I actually know a lot about that, if you really

    want to know..!

    {{{{{DaVincionlyslept4hoursadayhugs}}}}}

    by Caractacus on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:26:24 AM PDT

    •  If I could pull off the 1/2 hour every four trick

      I'd do that. Lots more time to do things. Or is it 1/2 hour every 6?

      by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:29:26 AM PDT

      •  It's rumored that when working Da Vinci

        had assistants who would wake him at 15 minutes. Sometimes, according to diaries of those who saw him at work, he'd hold a spoon in his hand and drift off to nap. When the spoon hit the floor it would wake him up and he'd go back to work. The spoon-as-alarm-clock-snooze-button. He invented so many things!

        Apparently he did this for days at a time. I'll let you figure out the 15-minute/4 hour to 24 hour day ratio on that one.

        There was a guy who tested this on himself, by the way. Until about 1 month his motor, cognitive, and affective abilities worsened. After one month, test scores in all three improved over base line. He lasted about 2.5 months before he crashed. I don't have a citation for that one, though. It's been years since I read about that in some psychology textbook somewhere. but, it always stuck with me for some reason. Psych is full of crazy little stories like that.

        by Caractacus on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:37:54 AM PDT

•  Sigh

  Just sigh.

  by LaFeminista on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:39:06 AM PDT

  •  May I sigh with you?

    Sigh.

    by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:40:20 AM PDT

    •  You may

      :::sigh:::

      by LaFeminista on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:43:36 AM PDT

  •  I agree 100%.

    ::sigh::

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:40:58 AM PDT

    •  I've gone past rage

      into disbelief.

      by LaFeminista on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:44:24 AM PDT

      •  deep sadness here..... (n/t)

        by gulfgal98 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:42:02 AM PDT

•  I didn't hear a decision informed by science

  I heard Bush redux, but with a more polished delivery. Look at who is supporting President Obama today. Even Joe Scarborough.

  by DorothyT on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:39:21 AM PDT

  •  So we evaluate policy ...

    ... based on Joe Scarborough's opinion?

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:41:53 AM PDT

    •  This doesn't necessarily apply to this instance

      but a stopped clock is right twice a day. You know, the old school analog ones, not the digital ones. A broken digital clock (with no display) is only correct when time ends.

      by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:43:58 AM PDT

      •  That is very profound, Brother Bear

        Is it yours and may I steal it for my quote jar?

        by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:47:35 AM PDT

        •  No, it's not mine.

          Even the most maliciously minded politician can be right on one or two issues. You can't throw out an idea just because someone you deplore/loathe the person who has that idea.

          Steal away.

          Quote is attributed to Marie Von Ebner-Eschenbach.

          by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:49:39 AM PDT

          •  I am talking about the digital clock part of it

            Not the twice a day one.

            I heard that before.

            by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:52:46 AM PDT

            •  Oh, the digital clock thing is mine afaik.

              I haven't heard anyone else use it before. Steal away.

              by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:53:50 AM PDT

              •  I also may take that line

                I am dealing with several old calculators, some came from my science lab days, but others were probably bank freebies or at least CC card "gifts".

                You know it's time to retire a calculator when segments of the LCD die, and sums look more like tweets from an unknown entity.

                BTW, bad sleep night for me as well. I blame it on the full moon shining in on the bed. I learned that the porcelain drawer pulls on my dresser glow when moon illuminated.

                Big Bear huggs to you, just be gentle in return.

                by riverlover on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:01:57 AM PDT

                •  The Wife says I don't do gentle.

                  I beg to differ.

                  I try anyway.

                  [bear hugs]

                  by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:03:22 AM PDT

                •  Me too!

                  Four hours of sleep and then I was wide awake.  Now, I'm far from wide awake.  I'll definitely blame it on the moon.  When I got up I thought my husband had turned on all the porch lights it was so bright outside.

                  by myrealname on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:45:06 AM PDT

              •  Wow. And in a major moment in synchronicity

                My mantle clock stopped at exactly midnight.

                The holiday threw my clock-winding-routine off and it hadn't been wound. Now I have to wait until noon to wind it because it is a 100+ year old clock and the chimes get messed up if I move the hands out of sync.

                by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:56:35 AM PDT

                •  lol, So you have to set your alarm to

                  remember to wind you cuckoo clock? Too funny!

                  by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:20:28 AM PDT

                  •  LOL. Time waits for no one.

                    I will have to set my alarm.

                    by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:42:14 AM PDT

                  •  In a followup, when I restarted

                    the clock, the hands were right but the chimes were off. High noon, 4 gongs. Err, nope.

                    So I had to tend to it for a bit to get the gongs back in sync (same thing I have to do for daylight savings time).

                    Old clocks: hate being stopped, hate daylight savings time.

                    by JanF on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 02:12:00 AM PDT

      •  A smile for broken digital clocks

        on a very grey day.  The weather here is ambivalent with storms on the way.  It seems an apt analogy for my reaction to last night's speech.  I do trust President Obama but I'm sad to see the escalation.

        Good morning and bear hugs.

        by Dichro Gal on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:08:17 AM PDT

        •  Morning.

          [BEAR HUGS]

          It's good riding weather here.

          Correction: it's ok riding weather here.

          Correction+1: there's no snow or ice on the roads but it's COLD here. It's too bad I have to haul around a 70 lb package, or I could probably get in what will be the last ride of the season. :-(

          by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:10:30 AM PDT

        •  I just think it's tragic

          that we can't be privy to all the information that went into his decision.  National Security and all that, but I am assuming there are more compelling reasons for his decision than he is able to tell us at this time.

          Everything in Obama's demeanor and expression told me this weighs heavily on him.  I can trust that far more than the silly glee electablog described above about W, not to mention W's close friendship with bin Laden's family.

          There is more, and we can't know about it just now.  That's an assumption based on history.

          by Gustogirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:21:52 AM PDT

      •  OTOH

        A broken digital clock (with no display) is only correct when time ends.

        A broken digital clock that flashes "88:88" is never right.

        by Calamity Jean on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 09:45:16 AM PDT

        •  Good point. It would have to be

          really really dead (as in does not light up at all).

          by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 10:44:01 AM PDT

    •  If the GOP can be the Party of No to Obama

      can't we be the Party of No to Scar? ;-)

      (I kid! I kid!)

      nt

      by grannyhelen on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:49:59 AM PDT

      •  Coffee Spew Award Nominee (if we had one)

        I will get on the No to Scar bandwagon...

        by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:04:11 AM PDT

    •  Just read Juan Cole's cautions...

      about the Obama plan below in LI Mike's welcome comment. This is the better discussion of Bush v. Obama in this context.

      by DorothyT on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:10:21 AM PDT

    •  I always say, don't believe what you like

      and disbelieve what you don't like.  I didn't listen to the speech because I knew I wasn't going to like whatever he said.  What I do like is that, so far at least, President Obama is not reluctant to change what doesn't work and try something new.  We are always going to have some bad actors and we need to have a response that works to immobilize them.  Bombing them with hellfire missiles doesn't work and I'm hoping that putting more boots on the ground means we'll pull back on the electronic warfare gambit and trying to execute people by remote control.  The collateral damage is too great, including the sense of insecurity the drones create in the population we are supposed to be aiming to protect.  Things exploding without warning are not reassuring.  Over time they do foster a deep sense of resentment.  Which is part of what happened in Iraq which had seen things suddenly blow up for almost a decade.  The no fly zone and the periodic demolition of defenses and communications facilities had built up enough ill will to last a generation.

      by hannah on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:13:11 AM PDT

      •  I didn't watch it either

        I chose to read the transcript because I did not want to be tempted to keep the TV on to listen to the talking heads.

        This decision is too important to boil down to what pundits say.

        by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:16:34 AM PDT

        •  Turning the talking heads off became

          easy the instant Tweety started talking.  He evaluated the speech as if it should have been a sales pitch.  That made me madder than a wet hen.

          That man sees everything as a game.

          Hugggs and good morning, Jan!

          by winterbanyan on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:33:44 AM PDT

          •  Did he get a thrill up his leg?

            Gak. I just made myself throw up.

            ::clearing that out of my brain::

            Good morning and ::hugggss:: to you too, winter.

            by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:41:39 AM PDT

          •  as soon as Tweety came on, I left the room

            I think the man is a moron.

            I loved Jon Stewart's interview with Tweety after his book "Life's a Campaign: What Politics Has Taught Me About Friendship, Rivalry, Reputation, and Success" came out.  Stewart questioned Tweety's conclusion that everything in life is a PR campaign where you get ahead by pretending to care about people, pretend to listen, and tell them whatever they want to hear. Stewart objection to the book was that Tweety is telling people that they should be nothing more that slick packaging.

            Tweety was not pleased...

            Chris Matthews: You're trashing my book.

            Jon Stewart: I'm not trashing your book,  I'm trashing your philosophy of life.

            Chris Matthews: You are unbelievable! This is the worst! This is a book interview from Hell! This is the worst interview I have ever had in my life! This is the worst! You are the worst! I thought you were so big - I thought you were so big you weren't afraid of me. You're so big, and you're afraid of this book. This book scares you. There's something in here that you fear.

            It was priceless!

            by theKgirls on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:17:14 AM PDT

            •  Thank you for posting that.

              That was a great moment for all people who think Tweety is creepy and moronic.

              Stewart was rocking that night.

              by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:27:56 AM PDT

            •  I remember that - I was

              ROFLMAO!

              Matthews has the worst quality of a talking head/journalist:  he is completely out of touch with real Americans.  His "packaging" notion is pure beltway - and it's clear beltway opinion carries more weight with him than does the opinion of his entire audience.

              Useless, soulless bombast.  I never listen to him.  It's bad for every facet and fiber of my being.

              by Gustogirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:28:34 AM PDT

            •  Yes, there is something in there that I fear.

              But, not the kind of run-to-the-corner-and-cower fear that he wants to project. That bit of packaging failed on launch.

              It's the kind of fear that motivates. Fear that empowers. Fear that inspires resistance. The kind of fear reminds you that doing nothing is far worse than doing nearly anything. And that if you can do the right thing, both in spite of that fear and because of it, then you will have denied it. Overcome it. Worked against it.

              That kind of fear.

              I turned him off a long time ago because of two things:

              1. He never listens to anybody.

              2. He groped Ellen D. in the most ham-handed and awkward way on live tv, then did nothing gentlemanly to correct himself or the situation. Let alone not getting into that situation in the first place. It's not hard to dance for 3 measures without grabbing your hostess' breast to keep yourself from falling over. Instead, he threw her on the chair! He acted like he didn't realize what had just happened, when every person watching knew exactly what just happened. If you can't politely apologize in such a situation then you have a lot to learn. He may have a resume, but he is sorely lacking in some of the basics of his profession.

              Hence, I turned him off.

              Like a train wreck, I dare you to not watch this for 12 seconds:

              by Caractacus on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:37:04 AM PDT

•  I'm disappointed that we are escalating rather

  than leaving. Kgirl1's teacher has been talking about her son in the military -- when I stopped by the classroom last week and saw his picture, I mentioned that K1 has been deeply concerned about him. She got tears in her eyes and said that he is supposed to deploy to Afghanistan in January.

  I see what President Obama is trying to accomplish, I understand it from a military point of view. But the tears in a mother's eyes... It's just so very sad. My heart aches for her and all the military families. Maybe the fact that there is an end date is a small bit of comfort for some of the families...

  Good morning and huggggggs

  by theKgirls on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:39:36 AM PDT

  •  I'm disappointed too, theKgirls.

    I served. Two of my sons served; one did three tours, the other was permanently disabled in a training accident. I have a nephew there now. So yes ... I'm disappointed too. I wish "get out and damn the consequences" were the least-bad answer, or at least I wish I were certain it is or isn't the least-bad answer. There were no good answers.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:45:22 AM PDT

    •  There are no victors in war.

      I have a brother in Iraq and an ex-coworker leaving for Afghanistan.

      by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:46:54 AM PDT

      •  Truer words were never posted!

        {BEAR HUGS]

        by gulfgal98 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:45:38 AM PDT

        •  ?

          [BEAR HUGS]

          Do you have a problem with one of your arms? :-D

          by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:48:30 AM PDT

          •  Former Coffee Spew Award Nominee

            (need janitor)

            by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:53:22 AM PDT

          •  LMAAAO.......my typing skills suck and

            Yes, those three A's were on purpose.  Stupid, stupider, and stupidest. LOL

            by gulfgal98 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:29:42 AM PDT

  •  My nephew, Kgirls

    What can I say.  He'll be leaving Iraq for Afghanistan.  He was in Afghanistan once already, and he felt our commitment there was too weak, and he wasn't talking massive armies.  He was talking about the diplomacy and aid to the ordinary folks, much of which has been sidetracked by Karzai and his cronies.

    I know he'd rather be home this spring, with a baby due in April.  I guess he won't be now.

    I'm weeping for many, but I think our President chose the option he perceived as the best one from the options he had to choose from.

    Hugggs and good morning!

    by winterbanyan on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:50:11 AM PDT

    •  I read Three Cups of Tea by Mortenson and

      hoped that we'd find a way to build wonderful things like schools.  President Obama did mention helping with agriculture.  Maybe there will be more positive things happening, too.

      Good morning and huggs.

      by Dichro Gal on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:13:52 AM PDT

      •  Fabulous book! (n/t)

        by Gustogirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:31:53 AM PDT

        •  Mortenson just published a new book

          I haven't read it yet but the summary says it picks up where Three Cups of Tea ended.  My library has it on order, so it's on my hold list.  Although I should probably just buy it.  I bought and gave away a number of copies of Three Cups of Tea.

          by Dichro Gal on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:00:39 AM PDT

  •  War should be that way

    A mournful thing. It means diplomacy and peaceful avenues are exhausted and that violence is the only course left.

    It is never something to celebrate or cheer about. I can only hope that our professionals gave the president enough correct information that he was able to arrive at the best choice among those available.

    by The Raven on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:22:34 AM PDT

    •  Joe Biden weighed in heavily

      and was a big influence on Obama's decisions, or so I have read.  If that is so, then President Obama is using his Vice President wisely.

      by JFinNe on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:37:56 AM PDT

  •  About a year ago

    the New Yorker had a piece by a reporter traveling with military in Afghanistan working on poppy eradication and reducing corruption--it seemed pretty hopeless--classic wack-a-mole. That's what worries me.

    Good morning to you Kgirls and huggggggggs!

    by EJP in Maine on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:28:01 AM PDT

•  Juan Cole's cautions

  Please excuse the bandwidth this post will consume, but thought it important for my fellow MFers:

  Top Ten things that Could Derail Obama's Afghanistan Plan

  1. Obama's plan depends heavily on training 100,000 new soldiers and 100,000 new policemen over the next three years. It has taken 8 years to train the first 100,000 soldiers fairly well, and the same period for the Europeans to train a similar number of police badly. Can the pace really be more than doubled and quality results still obtained?

  2. Obama's plan assumes that there can be a truly national Afghan army. But the current one is disproportionately Tajik and signally lacks troops from the troubled Helmand and Qandahar provinces. Unless the ethnic tensions are eased, training a big army could well provoke an anti-Tajik backlash in Pashtun regions that feel occupied.

  3. Obama's goal to "break the Taliban's momentum" may well fail. Only 20 percent of insurgencies in modern times are defeated in a decisive military manner.

  4. The US counter-insurgency plan assumes that Pashtun villagers dislike and fear the Taliban, and just need to be protected from them so as to stop the politics of intimidation. But what if the villagers are cousins of the Taliban and would rather support their clansmen than white Christian foreigners?

  5. Obama is demanding that Pakistan help destroy the Taliban movement, a historical ally of Pakistan in Afghanistan. While Pakistan now has good reason to attempt to wipe out the Pakistani Taliban Movement, which has committed a good deal of terrorism against the country, Islamabad has no reason to attack the Afghan guerrilla groups fighting Karzai. They are fellow Muslims, and are Pashtuns (as are 12 percent of Pakistanis), and dislike India. The Northern Alliance elements in the Karzai government, which have recently grown stronger, are pro-India. Obama is asking Pakistan to betray its national interests, which is not realistic in the absence of some much bigger carrot than a few billion dollars in foreign aid.

  6. Obama asserts that although the Afghan presidential election was marked by fraud, the results (the victory of Hamid Karzai) are legitimate within the constitutional framework. But isn't it possible that Karzai has decisively lost legitimacy among broad sections of the Afghan public, wounding him as a partner in working for a recognition of the legitimacy of a greatly expanded foreign occupation army in the country?

  7. Obama is demanding accountability from cabinet members in Afghanistan and offering agricultural and economic aid. But 15 present and former cabinet members are under investigation for massive embezzlement, and 7 key ministries were only able to spend 40% of their budget allocation last year. Isn't Obama counting on a culture of official probity and a governmental capacity that simply does not exist in Kabul? What happens when there is more cabinet-level corruption and when the Ministry of Agriculture once again just can't spend the money Obama gives it?

  8. Obama assumes that the US is not fighting a broadbased insurgency in Afghanistan. This assumption is true in the sense that there is zero support for Taliban or Sunni extremists among Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, and a majority of Pashtuns. But if we looked at the equivalent of counties in Helmand, Qandahar and some other Pashtun provinces, we might find substantial swathes of territory where the insurgency is in fact broadly based. Moreover, Pashtun guerrillas can count on a certain amount of sympathy from other Pashtuns in their struggle against foreign forces-- including the 20-some million Pashtuns of Pakistan. If the issue is not the "cancer" of extremist ideology, but a form of religious Pashtun anti-imperialism, then that could be the basis for a broadly based movement.

  9. Obama maintains that the "Taliban" have in recent years made common cause with "al-Qaeda" in seeking to overturn the Karzai government. But although the Taliban control 10-15% of Afghanistan, there are no al-Qaeda operatives to speak of in Afghanistan. That does not sound like much of a common cause. By confusing the Taliban with al-Qaeda, and by confusing the Taliban with other Pashtun guerrilla groups such as Hikmatyar's Hizb-i Islami, Obama risks making the struggle a black and white one, whereas it has strong regional, ethnic and nationalist overtones (see 8 above). Black and white struggles are much more difficult to negotiate to a settlement.

  10. The biggest threat of derailment comes from an American public facing 17 percent true unemployment and a collapsing economy who are being told we need to spend an extra $30 billion to fight less than 100 al-Qaeda guys in the mountains of Afghanistan, even after the National Security Adviser admitted that they are not a security threat to the US.

  by LI Mike on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:41:18 AM PDT

  •  Mike, I think the money issue is probably

    the least of our concerns.

    Our country has been running on funny money since the Bushies took over anyway.

    The last real surplus was Clinton's. Bush gave it away and we have been borrowing since then.

    by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:44:09 AM PDT

    •  Re: the money issue

      Tend to agree with you, Jan. But not sure how many of our fellow Americans will agree with us.

      Morning and huggs

      by LI Mike on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:51:58 AM PDT

      •  Yes, they think that the budget is

        like a pie that gets split into pieces.

        It is more like the GOP pie we talked about on Sunday. Just keep adding percentages to it...not based in reality.

        by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:54:17 AM PDT

        •  On Google news, I read a blurb that

          said the GOP was positive about the escalation of troops but didn't like the timetable or tax increases.  

          I'm not awake enough to come up with more than a disbelieving shake of my head -- endless, unpaid for war is the GOP position.

          As much as I'm ambivalent about President Obama's decision, I do appreciate that it was well-reasoned.

          Good morning and huggs.

          by Dichro Gal on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:23:06 AM PDT

          •  Well, Dichro Gal, we all get to take the Big Ride

            to see how this plays out. And I suspect that you are right about this statement;

            endless, unpaid for war is the GOP position

            But of course not HCR, or other items that go on the "budget". For some unknown reason, I watched the speech on CBS,and to hear McCain agree with the course of action and then say no, we don't need taxes, just let me get my hands on bills to eliminate the pork. No more bridges to nowhere! Your esteemed bud from AK came up with that scam, McClueless.

            Good morning to you, huggs from central NY.

            by riverlover on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:39:37 AM PDT

            •  I watched on MSNBC but didn't

              watch much of the commentary afterwards. But in the little I watched, Rachel said something about there not being anything that could be put on a bumper sticker.  I do like that President Obama treats us like rational adults.  The GOP, on the other hand, just seems to be interested in creating soundbites and bumper stickers.

              Good morning and huggs from a soon to be soggy SE.  I saw predictions for 60 mph winds, so I'm going to pull in all my containerized plants.

              by Dichro Gal on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:23:56 AM PDT

              •  My favorite bumpersticker this week:

                Republicans for Voldemort

                On the same background as the McCain/Palin campaign logo.

                by Caractacus on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:43:19 AM PDT

                •  If JanF were doing

                  coffee-spew and diet coke-spew awards now, that would certainly have done it for me. But I had swallowed my diet coke. Saved by the swallow, yet again. Isn't the USA great?!

                  by riverlover on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:51:42 AM PDT

                  •  What, JanF stopped? nt

                    by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:52:51 AM PDT

                    •  No, just her Memére's clock.

                      http://www.dailykos.com/...

                      We just have to decide which new stand to put in place.

                      (Crissie broke the microphone stand, you know)

                      by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:39:44 AM PDT

                •  I'm a popular culture illiterate.

                  I had to google Voldemort.  But I do like it now that I understand the context:-)

                  Good morning!  I did enjoy your diary yesterday.  If this country mouse makes it to the big city, I'll have to try a Michelin recommended restaurant.

                  by Dichro Gal on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:54:13 AM PDT

                  •  Thank you! For me, it's like going to a museum

                    that you can eat. These starred houses are really like being in Van Gogh's studio, these people make art with food that stimulates all the senses. Expensive, but cheaper at lunch and brunch. I'd try per se or Daniel if I had to choose one, but that's just me. Some day!

                    by Caractacus on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:32:53 AM PDT

  •  Those are all valid cautions.

    There are lots of things that can go wrong with this strategy. I am convinced that maintaining our current force size would guarantee a perpetual, slow bleed, so the only reasonable choices were go bigger or go home. I wish I were certain which of those is the least-bad option. I'm not.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:49:13 AM PDT

    •  Wish I were a foreign policy/military expert

      but I'm not. This might turn out to be the right decision, but my default position comes down on the side of -- get out now.

      On a side note, I remain in Shock and Awe whenever Dick Cheney speaks. I was really envious of Keith O last night. Whereas I can only yell at the TV and call Cheney names that only Ms LI Mike hears, KO gets to let ir rip for a 1/2 million or so viewers to hear.  

      Morning and huggs, Crissie.

      by LI Mike on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:00:10 AM PDT

      •  Did you see this on Cheney as "Cartoonish"?

        http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/...

        They won’t dare say this publicly. But Republicans in key messaging roles are privately voicing serious frustration with Dick Cheney’s ability to win media attention for his national security attacks on President Obama, claiming the attention is making it easier for the White House and Dems to mock GOP views as "cartoonish" and the stuff of "caricature."

        Ha ha ha ha ha.

        by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:06:28 AM PDT

        •  Didn't see that, thanks Jan n/t

          by LI Mike on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:21:46 AM PDT

        •  I love to hear things like that!

          Thanks and good morning, Jan!

          by EJP in Maine on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:29:26 AM PDT

          •  LOL. It was so funny to hear them

            worried about us mocking Cheney as "cartoonish".

            Glad to be able to share. It was my own private Coffee Spew this morning.

            Good morning back at you, EJP in Maine.

            by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:35:22 AM PDT

      •  I agree, but there's a lot that we're not privy

        to, so we can't factor it in, whereas the president has had lots of smart, informed people spending significant time assessing and making professional recommendations. I trust that he made the least worst decision and curse the names and various body parts of Cheeney, Rummy, Bush, et al who got us into this swamp and fracked it up so thoroughly.

        by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:12:38 AM PDT

        •  Wish I could tip this comment a 1000+ times. n/t

          by Dichro Gal on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:25:10 AM PDT

        •  You're absolutely right!

          ... curse the names and various body parts of Cheney, Rummy, Bush, et al who got us into this swamp and fracked it up so thoroughly.

          by Calamity Jean on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 10:16:28 AM PDT

      •  Jeez, LI Mike

        you wish you were a foreign policy or a military expert? Oh wait, employment in those fields might be pretty steady. My wonkishness does not tend in those directions.

        I virtually see that there is a honking big rain mass in the SE US. I haven't read any weather forecasts yet today, could this be the next Nor'easter for those of us in the NE US?

        Morning to you, huggs.  

        by riverlover on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:45:47 AM PDT

        •  Hi Riverlover

          Yeah, I'm wondering if SE Blogistan is under water right now. LOL. I still have outside work to do so hope it holds off.

          by LI Mike on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:01:56 AM PDT

  •  Good info and interesting background,

    thanks, Mike. One thing, KO pointed out last night and confirmed by, I think it was Howard Fineman, is that we're going to be now dealing more directly with local and regional government rather than Karzai's bunch, so that will hopefully cut out some of the most egregious embezzlement and corruption. Now whether that gives us enough leverage to clean up Karzai's organization, I don't know, but I find it encouraging that we're recognising the problem and doing something about it.

    by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:03:52 AM PDT

    •  Huggs and my you're early :)

      So glad to see you here at this hour.  Your blunt, good, common sense is always welcome.

      Along with your Golden Stiletto™ ;)

      Hugggs and good morning, FWG.

      by winterbanyan on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:05:57 AM PDT

      •  Put that on Subject Line: Golden Stiletto™

        Just sayin'

        by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:07:05 AM PDT

      •  I was running backup,

        just in case, I'll probably have to bail and get some more zzzzz's soon.

        And I still have to blood that stiletto and break it in. ::evil grin:: (There's got to be a good joke about the irony of my bluntness and a sharp instrument, it's just too early to find it). ;-)

        Good morning and :::Huuugggsss:::, Winter!

        by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:19:47 AM PDT

    •  Karzai and his cape problem

      Anyone notice how much trouble Karzai has with his cape?  He constantly tugs and shrugs at it and it looks like it is going to fall off at any moment.  Of course it may be heavy, lined as it were with all that cash.  

      I read recently that one in four Afghan soldiers simply disappear or go AWOL, and we are going to fix that in two years?  Our military working with their military say the biggest problem we have is trying to get the Afghan military to quit using violence against their fellow citizens.  

      by JFinNe on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:12:07 AM PDT

      •  Fellow citizens and rival tribes. The current

        military is mostly Tajik and the problem areas are mostly Pashtun, so lots to consider there. Recruitment of people from the same background should be a major goal, I would think. I think that the change in focus with us dealing more directly with the locals should be productive. Whether we can spark the sort of 'awakening' that turned the tide in Iraq remains to be seen, but I do think it's a step in the right direction.

        by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:25:47 AM PDT

    •  That sounds like a good idea.

      by Caractacus on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:44:53 AM PDT

  •  Who is Juan Cole?

    Just curious. Thanks for the post Mike.

    by addisnana on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:24:56 AM PDT

    •  Juan Cole is a Michigan U professor

      who specializes in Middle East studies. His blog is Informed Comment. I've been reading him since I discovered him (maybe through another DKOSer?) when we invaded Iraq.

      When Iraq was in the news a lot before Americans lost interest, Juan Cole was a frequent guest on PBS Newshour

      by LI Mike on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:40:16 AM PDT

      •  Thanks for the info n/t

        by addisnana on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:56:05 AM PDT

      •  I went to his blog and found a link to

        this article

        http://www.salon.com/...

        I found the article very interesting. But if nothing else, read the last paragraph.  I now have oatmeal on my keyboard:-)

        Thanks for the information on Juan Cole.

        by Dichro Gal on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:13:50 AM PDT

        •  An Oatmeal Spew?

          That is serious.

          by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:29:13 AM PDT

          •  and messy, too:-) n/t

            by Dichro Gal on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:56:46 AM PDT

            •  I read the paragraph you were referring to

              and I appreciate the warning because my coffee mug was safely to one side when I was ROFLMAO.

              by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:59:18 AM PDT

  •  Thanks, LI Mike,

    for reminding me that there are many complexities going on that the vast majority of Americans don't understand.

    I do at least trust that Obama has made the effort to get as comprehensive an understanding as possible.  There are so many variables in a fragmented, culturally diverse part of the world.  

    I guess one of the sad, expensive benefits to these wars is that at least I am learning much more about this corner of the earth.  I have at least learned enough to know how little I know, which is progress.  A sad kind of progress, but progress, nevertheless.

    by Gustogirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:39:35 AM PDT

•  I was opposed to the escalation but,

  having said that, I hope it's successful. I don't have any greater insight than others and wholeheartedly agree with this.

  I don't have enough specific information to agree or disagree with the certainty that many here have expressed

  I do think that Afghanistan was neglected for too long and any change may bring about a better result, though my greatest fear is that in 2011 we'll be no closer to having an end in sight than now. My hope is that everything goes as planned and we're out, leaving behind a government that can function well enough to keep the Taliban at bay.

  by sceptical observer on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:44:45 AM PDT

  •  Like you, I hope it succeeds.

    I'm not sure the escalation will or will not succeed. I'm sure that continuing with our present force size will not succeed.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:51:20 AM PDT

  •  I'm having problem with that term

    No matter what the Afghans will determine their own future after we leave.

    Success or failure we will know in a decade or so, same goes for Iraq. Iraq has a much better chance at whatever success turns out to mean.

    by LaFeminista on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:56:01 AM PDT

    •  Which term? I'm lost. n/t

      by sceptical observer on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:00:10 AM PDT

      •  Success

        Nobody has defined what success is as far as we are concerned.

        Killing all the terrorists is a mere fantasy dreamed up in committee.

        by LaFeminista on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:02:01 AM PDT

        •  This would suit me.

          leaving behind a government that can function well enough to keep the Taliban at bay.

          I'd hate to see all of this effort leading to the same state of affairs that existed pre-2001.

          by sceptical observer on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:10:38 AM PDT

          •  What if the Taliban

            is the least of two evils when compared to bully boys and corrupt tribal warlords running the show? The Afghans already picked the Taliban once, what's to say they won't do it again?

            How is it we can refrain from interfering in Ugandan politics, but in Afghanistan we must have a government that conforms to our ideas?

            Shall we continue to waste our treasure and spend the lives of our military looking for some scrap we can slap a banner on and call success?

            We cannot kill all the terrorists while maintaining conditions that produce more terrorists.

            by Orinoco on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:21:27 AM PDT

          •  The government we leave behind

            must be popular, the USSR made that serious error.

            Now where the hell do we find a popular government from? The recent elections were an absolute farce, unless someone is keeping a new government their handbag we have a serious problem.

            by LaFeminista on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:23:53 AM PDT

            •  Partition.

              by terrypinder on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:47:56 AM PDT

            •  Is it even possible to HAVE a central government

              in Afghanistan? From what I have read of the history of the region, the concept of afghanistan other than a region of the world that the average person there lives in is vague. Or maybe what I have read is xenophobic crap. I don't know.

              Good morning, wait, it's afternoon where you are?

              by riverlover on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:53:30 AM PDT

        •  There are other considerations in the

          region.

          Afpak border is porous and the Taliban-style fundamentalists have been gaining leverage in the area over the past decade and more. The Pakistani government has been fragile for quite a while and has increasingly abdicated control of significant territory to their version of neocons and evangelicals. The government is embattled... and in possession, however firm or flimsy, of a significant number of nuclear weapons. I don't think we really want to abandon the field to the very real threat of fundamentalists of any religion pushing to get control of that. I have faith that Obama made the least worst choice, there were no good ones after Cheeney, Rummy, et al f*cked up the works for eight years. It's a complicated place and a complicated, delicate situation that we're armchair quarterbacking without the benefit of anywhere near as much info as we'd need to make a reasonable decision.

          Sometimes when someone's in an accident and gets stabbed or impaled, the worst thing to do is pull the object out, it may be holding a major blood vessel closed and pulling it without surgical equipment handy may let them bleed out and die. The actions that seems obvious aren't always the best.

          I don't like the decision, but I know they took the time to explore all avenues and I trust that Obama has the information he needed and made the best decision possible. I don't like it, but I trust him in this. And BTW, I'm glad he talked to us like grownups, that was a nice change of pace.

          by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:36:20 AM PDT

          •  "he talked to us like grownups"

            That was indeed a welcome change of pace.

            And it was not a mindless piece of Peggy-Noonanish drivel where we had to rally around the flag or lose our "freedoms".

            I am glad we have someone smart running the executive branch.

            by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:45:40 AM PDT

            •  Amen! We chose good! n/t

              by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:48:52 AM PDT

        •  LaFeminista, <blinking lights>

          around

          Killing all the terrorists is a mere fantasy dreamed up in committee.

          For the past 9 years I have simply hated - hated(!) the fact that absolutely no one ever talks about the root causes of terrorism.

          Poverty, lack of education, desperation, a need for an object to target your rage, impotence, frustration.

          Why kill them all when helping them would be cheaper overall?

          by Gustogirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:52:14 AM PDT

•  Barack kisses his sister

  His plan contains a troop escalation along with a start date for withdrawal.  It's like Christmas - there's something for everyone to like.

  It's smart politically - I'll give him that.  The guy does want to get re-elected - this is a good Afghanistan plan for that need.

  Essentially, the plan is a Surge, then we begin the process of getting out.  It worked for Bush (sort of - it worked for him politically).  We were happy when we began to withdraw our forces from Iraq - I think we'll forgive Barack when troops come home from Afghanistan as well.

  The only variable left is whether or not we leave Afghanistan in reasonable shape, or if it's a disaster.

  by thenekkidtruth on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:50:16 AM PDT

  •  I'm pointedly avoiding the political aspects.

    Everyone is talking about the politics of this, what it says about President Obama's courage/integrity, whether it may make him unelectable in 2012, which groups will or won't support it, etc. I suppose those are interesting questions for some. But not for me.

    Last night, President Obama told a roomful of West Point cadets that this is the least-bad policy option available, and all but told them that some of them would die trying to make this policy work. Whether this is the least-bad policy option, and whether it is worthy of their sacrifice, is what I'm focused on.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:56:23 AM PDT

    •  I feel you

      I'm not convinced that this is the least-bad option, and I'm disappointed in Obama about that.  I think we should withdraw.

      Your analysis here this morning is nothing short of tremendous, btw.  Bravo, NCrissieB!

      by thenekkidtruth on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:02:21 AM PDT

      •  This comment sums it up for me. (n/t)

        by gulfgal98 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:59:42 AM PDT

•  No matter what was decided

  it was going to be wrong. The Bush administration painted who would ever succeed them by their complete inaction when it came to Afghanistan and the war there. How anyone one fix the complete and utter failure of  policy brought on by basic stupidity.

  by Mishima on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:51:19 AM PDT

  •  There were no good options here.

    It was picking the least-bad option. I wish I were certain this is the least-bad option (so I could support it wholeheartedly), or that I were certain this is not the least-bad option (so I could oppose it wholeheartedly). I don't know enough specific information to be certain of either. But I'm convinced this was neither "three more Friedman Units" nor "servile, gutless cowardice."

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:59:25 AM PDT

•  Law Enforcement? In Afghanistan?

  Can there be such a thing in land of Kaintucky hollers the size of Texas with a 10% literacy rate and people less tameable than the Highlanders that Rome built a wall to protect themselves from?

  Why do I have the feeling that no matter which kind of war we decide to fight, we'll be the only party there fighting it?

  by Gooserock on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:52:08 AM PDT

  •  That's a valid concern.

    Certainly given the worst-possible size/number of insurgency groups now existing, law enforcement techniques can't work. Whether they could work if there are more-but-smaller groups remains to be seen.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:00:48 AM PDT

  •  Love this description of Afganistan.

    Can there be such a thing in land of Kaintucky hollers the size of Texas with a 10% literacy rate and people less tameable than the Highlanders that Rome built a wall to protect themselves from?

    by Dichro Gal on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:32:57 AM PDT

  •  I'm looking forward

    to hearing what Obama has been able to talk other nations into supporting with troops and resources.

    That is a major pop quiz contributing to his final grade!

    by Gustogirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:58:27 AM PDT

•  If you feel that his proposal was correct, then..

  let's spread this entire debacle over the entire population of this country and have everyone share the pain and sacrifice be they good or bad:  Bring back the draft, and let's propose a war tax to fund this peccadillo.

  Care to listen to the howls of disapproval that would bring regarding those two ideas?

  Care to see just who would line up then, and go and sacrifice their lives, or the lives of their sons and daughters to achieve the great factious outcome of the nation building task at hand?

  Nobody.  The president is wrong on this one, and the country, and all of us will suffer for it both in the short and long term without making for the sacrifices I mentioned above.  It's not fair to have only the 1 percent of this country give for this "war", as it only makes the balance of us, the 99 percent of the citizens, numb to the entire issue of just what is involved with the idea of "sacrifice for country".

  It's "easy" to see the message behind the president's call for more troops, but underneath the actions lie the need for everyone to share in the task at hand.  I say, I have seen this movie before, and know full well the ending without having to purchase a ticket to sit in the front row ever again.

  Thanks, but no thanks:  I dont' buy it.

  by LamontCranston on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:56:14 AM PDT

  •  Having served, and having two sons ...

    ... who served - one who did three tours, the other permanently disabled in a training accident - and a nephew over there now ...

    ... I understand your position.

    I hope President Obama chose the least-bad policy option here. I'm not certain he did, or that he didn't. I'm convinced he thought it through and made what he believes is the least-bad policy decision, and that this is neither "three more Friedman Units" nor "servile, gutless cowardice."

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:04:02 AM PDT

    •  Marine morale is pretty high

      according to the L.Cpl. nephew.  

      They aren't going into it without body armor, and they aren't sending in green troops, prepping them with overseas duties beforehand.

      by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:06:39 AM PDT

      •  I like to think that Obama

        is thinking about the impact on our troops he is sending, unlike our previous president...

        by EJP in Maine on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:33:06 AM PDT

•  One more problem

  Army Times: Private security impairs U.S. forces in Afghanistan

  If the surge gets private security under control we may have a breakthrough.  

  by Jim W on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:58:25 AM PDT

  •  Yes, that's another element that must be ...

    ... contained if we're to make any progress. I hope President Obama's policy choice includes strategies for doing that.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:04:59 AM PDT

•  It's too late

  America, the Empire, is doomed. The Empire war culture has syped the deepest recesses of the American psyche; even the left now is morally corrupt, in its servile defense of an Orwellian strategy so that a Democratic president can get his macho credentials, while sacrificing the lives of thousands of young Americans to the altar of the military industrial complex for political expediency.

  by politicjock on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:58:33 AM PDT

  •  I absolutely resent the bitter cynicism

    of your comment.  I have blood on this altar, and I'm sorry, I don't think this is about getting "macho credentials."  Not at all.

    Unlike the last administration.

    by winterbanyan on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:02:54 AM PDT

    •  There is nothing cynical about reality

      Obama has simply lied to our men and women in uniform about the purpose of this war, which is to perpetuate and expand the American empire by securing control of enough energy resources to maintain the war machine going for the forceable future.

      Obama's speech was as Orwellian as Bush's speeches. He is perpetuating Bush's preemptive doctrine by saying that we need to prevent future threats that have yet to materialize. I am sure the generals are looking at Obama and saying: That's a good boy!".

      Shame on the Democrats. There is no left in this country. We need an alternative to war now!

      by politicjock on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:12:37 AM PDT

      •  At this point, I'm going to go read

        WB's comment.

        by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:14:24 AM PDT

        •  Gah, link didn't post.

          here

          by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:14:40 AM PDT

          •  Big Bear....

            Mega, Mega huggs to you for that :)

            by winterbanyan on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:36:09 AM PDT

      •  I didn't detect much bullshit last night

        He talked Walter Reed and Dover AFB.

        My b.s. meter only went off when he said "let me be absolutely clear" because I knew he couldn't do that.

        by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:20:30 AM PDT

  •  I disagree with your characterization ...

    ... of the problem and the reasons for this policy decision.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:06:06 AM PDT

    •  War is a little more that a "problem"

      "War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement."

      James Madison

      by politicjock on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:36:17 AM PDT

      •  Yep. That does sound like a problem!

        A big ol' problem, indeed!

        by Caractacus on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:52:01 AM PDT

•  The force, the initial 9,000 Marines might

  already be nearby, the delay in the decision being used to get them ready to deploy.  

  That is what might be evident quick, a Bush surge took a year, and Obama might have half of it done by springtime.

  by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:04:01 AM PDT

  •  I'm not sure whether quick implementation ...

    ... will have all that much effect on the outcomes here. Setting the 2011 beginning-of-end date was very important, in my view. One way or another, by then, we will know whether this worked. Either way, there will be no sound policy reason to remain there.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:08:53 AM PDT

    •  I'm seeing and reading quadrant commanders

      saying there is a huge difference between having a passing influence on the market cities, and having a 500 man footprint.

      by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:13:19 AM PDT

•  The killing must stop and the science is crap

  The "science" simply ignores the human cost -- the fracturing or coalescing means massive destruction of lives and property.

  Moreover, this "science" is on its face complete crap. As an article in the war college journal Parameters noted back in the 1990s, police solutions require at least a certain troop to population ratio. The article in question, considered the finest example of its thinking in the field, is Force Requirements in Stability Operations. It notes:

  Force ratios above ten per thousand of population. Force ratios above ten per thousand have been mounted in stability operations. In 1952 the British forces in the Malayan Emergency deployed close to 40,000 regular troops from Britain and the Commonwealth as well as the regulars of the Malay Regiment itself.[10] At the same time, the police force had 29,800 regular police together with 41,300 special constables,[11] for a total full-time security force of more than 111,000. With a population at the time of 5,506,000, the British generated a force ratio of about 20 per thousand of population. If the Home Guard force of 210,000 (1953 strength, not all of whom were either armed or active at any given time) were added to the previous figure, the force ratio would be even higher.

  In Northern Ireland the British government deployed for more than 25 years a security force of around 32,000 (including both British military forces and the Royal Ulster Constabulary) to secure a total population of just over 1.6 million, giving a force ratio of about 20 per thousand. The British have recently reduced their military forces as part of an ongoing peace process.

  The math on Obama's surge is not difficult to do. The population of Afghanistan is 28 million, which means that at 20 per thousand for active revolt, we'd have to commit over 400K troops. Of course, we have lots of rosy assumptions about the massive Afghan Army, which is perpetually only a Friedman unit or two away, but the fact is that it will never amount to anything.

  The reality is that our commitment to Afghanistan is simply sustaining further senseless butchery for heaping amounts of blood and (borrowed) treasure.

  Meanwhile our positions elsewhere in the world, scarcely ever mentioned in discussions of the Middle East and the terrorists, so obsessed are we, are in full retreat. China looms Sauron-style over Africa and South America. Japan keeps waving from across the lake, but we don't see how distressed they are with our policies. India and other SE Asian nations, eager as they are to make deals with China, look to the US for leadership to counterbalance that rising regional and global hegemon. And the Obama Administration is doing what? Chasing clans of Pushtuns around the Afghan hills. Our strategic horizons have telescoped so alarmingly that our foreign policy makers have mistaken the white glow of the current American imperial NDE for the light at the end of the tunnel.

  Vorkosigan

  by Vorkosigan on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:05:04 AM PDT

  •  The existing law enforcement resources ...

    ... in Afghanistan are manifestly inadequate to deal with an insurgency of this structure. There are now too many groups that are too big to be controlled by law enforcement techniques. Whether those resources will continue to be inadequate if the structure of the insurgency changes ... remains an open question.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:11:14 AM PDT

•  Initial Indian response is positive:

  http://www.expressindia.com/...

  Pointing out that India has always maintained that it doesn't have a direct involvement in Afghanistan, Tharoor said, "American abbreviation for their policy is Af-Pak and I see India in neither of those two abbreviations. Afghanistan and Pakistan are the focus of this policy and focus of President Obama's speech."

  Tharoor welcomed US' continued commitment in Afghanistan and said India was "very pleased that pressure on Al-Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan and on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border will not be eased."

  US has announced sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan for containing insurgency and securing key population centres there.

  Tharoor said that continued military pressure on Taliban and Al-Qaeda was an extremely important security component of the challenges faced by Afghanistan.

  Refusing to comment on details of the US President's speech, Tharoor said, "It (Af-Pak policy) is the overall approach of continued engagement and focus on dealing with the every real security dangers faced by Afghanistan."

  Tharoor said India believed that entire international community has a stake in continued stability of Afghanistan and success of the Hamid Karzai government in establishing his authority through out the country.

  He added that India was making contribution in Afghanistan in a different way by building roads, hospitals, clinics and laying down power supply lines there.

  by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:10:53 AM PDT

  •  India is in a difficult position here.

    They are an obvious regional stakeholder who, for a lot of reasons, can play no direct role in trying to assist any solution. That's not a position I envy.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:12:55 AM PDT

  •  In lieu of American involvement

    not just Afghanistan but Pakistan become very worrisome for New Delhi... worrisome to the extent that trying out the upgraded armed forces on Pakistan becomes a very tempting prospect.

    Worrisome to the extent that the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons becomes a huge deal, not just for India but for China.

    In a sense we are doing the Asian powers a big favor here.

    We are also keeping a LOT of people alive, who if things were to go pear-shaped in South Asia would not stay that way for very long.

    But how do you sell - we need to sacrifice a few hundred GI lives to keep alive half a billion people you will likely never even know, who aren't even in the current theater of conflict?

    Easy. You just spell it out. We're doing this now so we aren't spraying fallout dust from a regional nuclear war on the far side of the planet off our cars every morning for six months.

    by cskendrick on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:25:08 AM PDT

    •  I didn't know, until the state dinner, that

      India is such a major monetary investor in Afghanistan, 3rd on the list iirc.

      by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:26:51 AM PDT

      •  Oh yes

        India has a lot of skin in the central Asia game, same as the other major powers.

        The U.S. in Afghanistan is the foot in the door. Absent that presence, the political climate in Afghanistan threatens to move into the Indus valley. All of it.

        And that would not please Indian government at all. Nor the current one in Pakistan.

        by cskendrick on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:35:14 AM PDT

•  I really didn't much like the decision.

  Obama's intention to "finish the job" was one of the things I didn't like about him as a candidate, and I don't like it any more now that he's our President.

  Damn the consequences? There will be damnable consequences whenever we leave, if we ever do. The waffling about "conditions on the ground" makes it clear that we are too close to the trees to see the forest.

  We are playing domestic politics (again) on foreign soil. This will not end well. Sooner or later we will leave, be thrown out, or break, and the Afghans and Pakistanis will do whatever they do, on their own. The only difference between then and now is the unnecessary death and treasure squandered in the meantime.

  Good morning! and ::hugggggggggggggs:: :)

  by Orinoco on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:11:47 AM PDT

  •  I'm not as certain of that.

    I don't know whether this strategy can work. I do know continuing the previous strategy can not work.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:14:05 AM PDT

  •  Look at cskendrick's comments just upthread

    there's a lot more than we realize to consider. I think the president wanted to just pull us out, but there are too many things leaning on the one, (Afpak), region to be able to pull out and not destablize the area more than it already is. There's a cascade failure waiting to happen and we've got our finger in the dam.::sigh::

    by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:04:20 AM PDT

    •  Maybe

      There's a cascade failure waiting to happen and we've got our finger in the dam.::sigh::

      We are not going to take Pakistan's nuclear arsenal  with us when we leave Afghanistan, no more than we will leave with India's, or China's. We have been walking back nuclear arms for a couple of decades now, 18 months is not going to make that much difference.

      As to a cascade failure, that sounds suspiciously like dominoes falling to my ear, which brings up Vietnam, and our disastrous, costly and ultimately pointless adventure there.

      Somehow we think our boys, our communications, our diplomacy, our shining beacon on the hill, is what makes all the difference between civilization and anarchy. I suspect the world is muddling along, and we are just part of the muddle.

      by Orinoco on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:52:28 AM PDT

      •  I acknowledge the rhyme, ::sigh::, but I hope

        it's not a refrain,  (as in chorus, repeat, etc). I don't know the right answer, I don't know if we're even asking the right questions. There are so many things that would have to go right and so many things that can go so wrong. But I am so glad that, if we have to be in this abominable mess, Obama's the one making the calls, not McCain/Palin.

        Good morning, Orinoco. :::Huuugggsss:::

        by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:02:49 AM PDT

      •  This IS muddling. It's that or chaos.

        I think everyone in the room gets this, Orinoco. No one mistakes this situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan as being glorious.

        by cskendrick on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:29:33 AM PDT

  •  We're not playing at anything

    We're trying our best to stop the destabilization of a country with nuclear weapons - Pakistan.

    Now, if you have a game plan to get the Islamabad regime to account for all its nukes and hand them over - and are willing to pay whatever price that Pakistan's government asks to make this bearable - let's run with that.

    by cskendrick on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:28:22 AM PDT

    •  This is exactly what I've been thinking, and how

      this situation is so different from Viet Nam. This is the real  reason I'm not totally against staying and trying. Still not convinced that we can do anything of real substance, but at least we're still in the neighborhood if something breaks loose.

      by FarWestGirl on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 12:11:07 AM PDT

      •  There was a diary on the rec list for a lot

        of the morning about how this is really about the loose nukes in Pakistan.

        Nuclear bombs in a failed state would be a terrible combination. There are no parallels to that in Vietnam.

        The Taliban are the people who blew up the Buddha's:

        12 Mar 2001
        THE world's two largest standing Buddhas - one of them 165ft high - were blown up by the Taliban in Afghanistan at the weekend. After failing to destroy the 1,700-year-old sandstone statues of Buddha with anti-aircraft and tank fire, the Taliban brought a lorryload of dynamite from Kabul. A Western observer said: "They drilled holes into the torsos of the two statues and then placed dynamite charges inside the holes to blow them up."

        These people do not care about the continuity of history or their peoples.

        by JanF on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 01:17:23 AM PDT

        •  Hey, you're up late. Have you checked email

          lately?

          I saw a documentary about the Buddhas being destroyed, infuriating, disgusting and sad. They're so small and petty that they're threatened by anything different. They have to erase anything that isn't them.

          I'm going to catch some zzz's, see ya in a bit.

          by FarWestGirl on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 01:33:06 AM PDT

          •  Actually up early. I emailed the HTML to you

            in two separate emails: one as a .txt file (which you might not be able to open) and one as the html code in the body of the email.

            by JanF on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 01:58:34 AM PDT

          •  Don't oversleep ;-)

            We don't want to have another empty microphone moment for MF.

            by JanF on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 01:59:49 AM PDT

•  Science? Surely you jest...this escalation makes

  the Taliban into a freedom-fighting Afghan force. Watch and learn. We're creating a new revolution in Afghanistan that will not end well.

  by IndySteve on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:13:03 AM PDT

  •  This isn't about a military solution.

    I'm sure President Obama and his national security team would be elated beyond words if the many small insurgencies coalesced into a single Taliban-led insurgency. That would make it much easier to negotiate a peaceful end, because there would be only one insurgent leadership - the Taliban - with whom to negotiate.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:16:02 AM PDT

  •  Taliban - our allies

    They were on our side against the Russians.  If Osama bin Laden was the goal we would have won in 2001.  See this comment linking to the Washington Post archive.

    by Jim W on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:42:40 AM PDT

•  Sadly, the Pashtun's have a longer view of things

  than we do. Fragment until 2012. Come back then.

  by Hector Gonzalez on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:15:54 AM PDT

  •  I agree they might try that strategy.

    I'm not sure it will work for them. Let's assume they do as you say: go to ground for the next 24-36 months on the theory they can reemerge and start fighting again as soon as we leave. That strategy presumes the Afghan government will be as week then as it is now, and that the Afghan people will be as willing to tolerate warlords then as they are now. Given 24-36 months of comparative quiet, either or both of those conditions might not exist ...

    ... and the warlords may find themselves without any willing recruits and/or facing a government that has, finally, managed to win the people's trust. So "just wait out the Americans" is not a strategy certain of success.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:19:48 AM PDT

    •  I fear that you are applying your concept

      of time frames to them. Take a look at the last six or seven video's from the Plaid Avenger's World.

      http://www.plaidavenger.com

      by Hector Gonzalez on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:33:22 AM PDT

      •  If they resume their civil war ...

        ... after we leave in 24-36 months, then we'll know nothing we did could have made it any better. But if they went to ground in those 24-36 months, that is at least 24-36 months of comparative calm for the Afghan people.

        Good morning! ::hugggggs::

        by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:06:36 AM PDT

        •  I hope so. I hope it works. I had hoped Bush's

          efforts would work. I'm not an optomist about it but we need to realize that it's not Bush's war or Obama's war. It's our war. How we conduct it is a reflection on us.

          When there are civilian casualties, it's the American People's fault. When we employ non-Afghani's to build the infrastructure of the country, it's our fault that the people of Afghanistan have no "ownership" in that infrastructure and are therefore not "grateful" enough to us for our efforts.

          by Hector Gonzalez on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 01:01:01 PM PDT

  •  Interesting concept

    They could easily fragment and fade back into society for a couple of years and one wonders what our response would be to that?  Psychologically, I don't see that happening though.  These men don't know anything else to do but wage havoc.  Way back when, Native American men didn't do anything but learn the tricks of hunting and more importantly, the tricks of warfare, and quite regularly raided another tribe just for the heck of it.

    by JFinNe on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:29:17 AM PDT

    •  They're fanatics, not sure that 'sit and wait'

      would fly in their philosophy. Who knows?

      by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:35:23 AM PDT

      •  Gotta look at it from their perspective. To

        get some insight into their perspective, I recommend the last 6 or 7 video's at:

        http://www.plaidavenger.com

        by Hector Gonzalez on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:37:34 AM PDT

        •  I'm on dialup, but I'll try to catch them at

          the library. Thanks.

          by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:08:05 AM PDT

    •  I've heard that there needs to be a jobs

      program. Both here and in Afghanistan. It'd be money well spent. We don't want the only employment to be in the Afghan police force/army.

      by Hector Gonzalez on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:35:39 AM PDT

      •   A big part of why we're in this mess is because

        we cut foreign aid 20 years ago and the islamic fundamentalists filled in the gaps with madrassas. Now they've trained two generations of boys to men in their version of school and we're paying many times over what it would have cost to have invested and raised solid allies. Cheap comes home to roost.

        by FarWestGirl on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 12:17:19 AM PDT

  •  We have to grab up that poppy crop

    We have to get some of those Dubai warlord accounts frozen.

    We can feed the peasants this winter, the Taliban can't.

    by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:35:26 AM PDT

    •  Or we could legalize poppy juice

      Without a black market, the price drops to that of any other agricultural product, a decent living but nothing that will support a small private army.  Without the small private armies dotting the Afghan and Pakistani hinterlands, I suspect a political accommodation would be quicker in the making. But this is a political third rail in the United States, so we can't touch it.

      by Orinoco on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:57:31 AM PDT

      •  You're right. Gotta knock the money out from

        underneath the opium crop. Buy up the crop itself? Might only take 500 million.

        I fear that the "laws" of unintended consequences would bite us on the butt. But no matter what we do, unintended consequences will occur so I think legalize poppy juice is worth a try.

        by Hector Gonzalez on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:31:32 AM PDT

        •  Defunding narco-states

          terrorists, street gangs, warlords, and other assorted misfits does not seem to have much of a downside. Except, of course, that we'd sell fewer small arms, RPGs and ammunition. Yacht sales may take a temporary hit as well.

          A big unintended consequence might be putting the budget in the black again, since imprisonment costs would drop to next to nothing, property insurance would go way down, and the taxes collected on a multi-billion dollar entertainment and self-medication industry would be immense.

          Are we a narco state? Our largest cash crop is marijuana...

          by Orinoco on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 03:04:54 PM PDT

•  I'm just deeply saddened

  I appreciate that there may be some science behind this decision and that there were no good options.

  I am just very sad that war continues. Soldiers and citizens die and they are not the "bad guys." We are creating more widows and widowers and orphans.

  The debates about timelines and troop levels and surges all start from the premise that this is a necessary war. I guess I am not convinced that it is necessary or good.

  Thanks for the perspective NCB.

  GM and Huggggs

  by addisnana on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:16:46 AM PDT

  •  I agree completely, addisnana.

    I'm neither certain "get out and damn the consequences" is the worst option, nor certain it is not the worst option. I wish I were certain, one way or the other, either to oppose or support President Obama's policy wholeheartedly. Instead I find myself wishing this weren't the policy he's chosen, but hoping that somehow this policy enables something we can call "success" and begin leaving in 2011.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:22:28 AM PDT

•  BREAKING: The 5 Brit sailors are released by Iran

  Just a regional coincidence.

  by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:18:01 AM PDT

  •  And a suicide bomber outside the naval base

    in Islamabad, killed himself and one other, injured 'several' including a 6-year-old.

    by StepLeftStepForward on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:28:31 AM PDT

    •  The Pakistani population has to be getting mad

      about those suiciders, that is the basis of the SWAT invasion being even considered, much less extended.

      by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:32:11 AM PDT

      •  Yep, indeed. nt

        by StepLeftStepForward on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:43:16 AM PDT

•  Thank you Crissie, for the great

  summary and analysis!

  I didn't hear the speech and the only "analysis" I saw in our paper was by the AP and full of their usual bs "concerns", so of course I could not read that!  But, you summarized it beautifully.  I agree with you, I don't know whether it is good or not, but at least I understand!

  Good morning and huggggggggs to you and the Krew!

  by EJP in Maine on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:18:24 AM PDT

  •  I've avoided the pundits since last night ...

    ... because the two minutes I saw immediately after the speech leapt immediately into the political calculations: who will/won't support it, how many approval points President Obama will gain/lose, will he be electable in 2012, etc.

    I wanted to focus on the policy itself, and try to better understand why maintaining our current force size simply could not work, period.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:25:32 AM PDT

    •  Ol man McCain is the face of the opposition

      His droning and Cheney's rants are the voices, nobody else on the other side of the aisle has any rep, based on recent history.

      Bush sure is quiet, but you'll probably hear a peep of approval within 24 hours, or he's gonna get thrown under two buses.

      by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:42:20 AM PDT

      •  I don't think Bush still has anyone

        telling him what his opinion is. Not surprised at the quiet. If he says anything at all, I'd expect a non-committal "we only have one president at a time" comment.

        by Orinoco on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:00:29 AM PDT

        •  Coffee Spew Award Nominee

          I don't think Bush still has anyone telling him what his opinion is.

          Thanks A LOT, Orinoco.

          Good morning to you and ::hugggss::.

          (now, how do I clean up that mess?)

          by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:06:42 AM PDT

          •  You're welcome

            JanF. I've been in a dark funk since reading the transcript of the speech yesterday. I'm glad I can still make somebody laugh.

            Good morning, and ::hugggggggggggggs:: :)

            by Orinoco on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 10:02:48 AM PDT

            •  I am willing to bet that no one who regularly

              posts on this site is cheering right now.

              We knew that the Bushies totally botched everything. The economic stuff came home to roost immediately, the Afghan debacle is biting us in the hiney right now and it is only a matter of time before we are up to our necks in melted glaciers.

              I hope that the historians rush out a few books on the Bush years so that people learn a quick lesson and we do not stumble into that kind of insanity again.

              This is where we have the cold water dumped on us that it really will take a generation to undo this mess...and that it was not just campaign rhetoric.

              by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 10:51:04 AM PDT

•  The big question behind all others, even HCR

  How, over the next 20 years, do China and the United States accommodate one another's interests sufficiently to avoid a Second Cold War?

  Because we were very, very lucky that the first Cold War stayed cold.

  And it's a much more crowded, desperate planet this century than the last.

  We're not doing a thing in Afghanistan with Afghanistan as the top priority. Nor Pakistan. Nor the FUBAR on Terror.

  This is all about realignment of spheres of influence.

  Now, a person might ask - ok, why stick around in central Asia when it's not likely to stay in our sphere? Shouldn't we start looking for more manageable digs.. you know, someplace with a coastline where our navy gives us the edge?

  Don't worry, that's already taking place. I can even tell you where - Africa. We're regrouping our sphere of influence to Africa - to compete directly with the Chinese there. And we will need India's help - or at least non-opposition - to do this right.

  We will also need to do our utmost to defuse the prospects of a major war in South Asia - between India and Pakistan.

  This is not just an unqualified good unto itself ( regional nuclear war, bad. Regional peace, good!) It keeps a major potential ally - one with a democracy in place - in existence for the future bipolar-going-on-multipolar world.

  In short - this is not yet the time for world peace. That might be coming along pretty soon though, if we play the cards right.

  by cskendrick on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:20:05 AM PDT

  •  I'm suspicious of that lens ...

    ... because that lens led to a very ugly strategic myopia in the 1950s-1990s: the United States ended up talking about human rights, freedom, democracy, etc., while simultaneously propping up right wing despots so long as they remained right wing despots and thus allies against communism. Meanwhile, we missed or ignored many opportunities to have improved the lives of real people in real countries whom and that we saw as only pieces and squares on a global chess board.

    I don't want to repeat that mistake with China cast in the role of Arch Rival.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:29:20 AM PDT

    •  I would rec this comment a thousand times if

      I could.

      while simultaneously propping up right wing despots so long as they remained right wing despots and thus allies against communism.

      [BEAR HUGS]

      by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:32:06 AM PDT

      •  I gave you a proxy rec for Crissie's statement.

        And I also agree with her.

        by riverlover on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:02:54 AM PDT

        •  Does it work that way? If so, my proxy rec

          should rec your proxy rec of KV's.

          If it doesn't work, we haven't lost anything. Worth a try.

          ;-)

          by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:29:01 AM PDT

    •  Since I am not adhering to that myopia

      Merely presenting it as the thing to avoid - that everyone in the room is trying to avoid, Chinese leadership included - I am sure we are in accord on this.

      Regardless, this is the problem to be sorted. To fail in this task will moot all other public policy issues including climate change.

      by cskendrick on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:33:43 AM PDT

  •  Cold War or foreclosure? China is heavily

    invested, literally, in the US. They already have a LOT of leverage that should make us really wary. A lot of implications there, and China is also investing heavily in Africa and South America. Plus they've already got 20 million young men who aren't going to be able to have Chinese wives. Factor that in. ::sigh::

    by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:52:25 AM PDT

    •  Oh I think the Chinese naval bases

      in Latin America that are coming in about 10-20 years will get people's attention, and how.

      by cskendrick on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:09:04 AM PDT

•  Folks, we'd prefer if the Taliban and some

  alternative-to-Karzai leader sat down for a beer summit.

  But Obama has the ear of Russia, China, India, and we might see other breakthroughs (Cuba??) soon.

  by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:24:04 AM PDT

•  Afghanistan is a mire

  First, I have to admit that I did not see the President's speech last night because I went to a student percussion concert at a nearby college instead.  I almost did not log on today because of my disappointment over committing more troops to Afghanistan. So, my comments are based upon my understanding of the Afghanistan situation in absence of the President's speech last night.

  Our original mission was supposedly to hurt down and capture or kill Osama bin Laden. When we reached a point of almost success, we turned our attention to Iraq. Now, we do not know for sure IF bin Laden is in Afghanistan or even alive. The Administration's own estimate is that there are less than 100 Al Queda in Afghanistan at the present. So why are we in Afghanistan now?  

  Afghanistan has never been a country in the sense as we know.  Outside Kabul, it is basically a series of fiefdoms controlled by tribal chieftans.  We are not fighting a single entity, but a series of multiple entities who could care less beyond protecting their own fiefdoms.  All of this is set in the background of terrain that has destroyed many other armies.  This is a civil war of sorts that existed prior to our involvement with no real good guys and a corrupt government that we have been propping up for nearly nine years.

  I do believe that the President has weighed far more evidence than we have here in coming to his decision.  However, like Meteor Blades, I also believe that President Obama may eventually regret this decision.  I simply fail to see a good ending out of all of this and I am deeply saddened by our continuing to send our troops into this mire called Afghanistan.

  by gulfgal98 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:25:45 AM PDT

  •  You forgot the quag.

    Giggity giggity.

    [BEAR HUGS]

    by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:29:27 AM PDT

    •  LOL, thank you for a giggle this am....

      ::::::::::::::hugs:::::::::::::::

      by gulfgal98 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:04:03 AM PDT

  •  I agree with you.

    I hope this policy creates conditions that allow more stability for the people of Afghanistan, and allow us to begin leaving by 2011. I'm not certain it will, or that any alternative staying-there-strategy could. I wish I were more confident - one way or the other - but I'm just not.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:31:34 AM PDT

•  Question re: the Science...

  This is fascinating.  But is there any indication that the President is actually using this science in the thinking behind his decision, or is the diarist just pulling this in to give hope for a successful "surge?"

  Just curious.

  by jdn74 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:28:50 AM PDT

  •  There were passages in the speech ...

    ... that made clear President Obama ruled out maintaining the current force size for reasons like those Dr. Gourley explains. I can't prove President Obama consulted this particular source, but neither can I prove he didn't. Regardless, it's apparent that President Obama "gets it" in terms of the mathematics of the conflict.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:33:43 AM PDT

    •  Cool.

      Thanks for the info.

      by jdn74 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:35:48 AM PDT

•  Doesn't this model assume

  A finite number of "groups" (our enemies) that will either fragment or coalesce?

  That was probably mostly true in Iraq, where there was/is (I think) a somewhat stronger sense of nationalism; i.e. I doubt there were many countries bordering Iraq, sending in troops to fight Americans.

  Again, I'm not sure this dynamic applies to Afghanistan with its porous borders with Pakistan - the area where bin Laden is most likely to be. Men and materials flow back and forth between Pakistan and Afghanistan and it would seem this could change the equation quite a bit.

  Finally, I'd add it's very difficult to tell the difference between your average Pashtun tribesman and a member of the Taliban. From what I understand, there is little difference in many cases and most Pashtun certainly don't ally themselves with us, unless it's out of some temporary necessity or benefit.

  I borrowed this graphic from Unitary Moonbat's excellent diary from the other day. Check out the distribution of the Pashtun tribe:

  

  The Pashtun tribes seem pretty concentrated in the east and south... all along the very porous border with Pakistan.

  It's pretty early and my coffee I.V. hasn't kicked in yet and I could certainly be wrong, but it could very well be that comparing Iraq to Afghanistan is an apples-to-oranges comparison. In other words, Afghanistan is a "special" place and a "special" situation.

  by Snud on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:32:40 AM PDT

  •  The model is based on wider data ...

    ... than just Iraq. Their initial data set included ongoing insurgencies from around the world. Having analyzed that data, they then made some predictions about the data they would see in Iraq, and the Iraq data fit their predictions. Admittedly, Afghanistan may be an exceptional situation that doesn't fit into that model - no matter how widely drawn the data for the model - but I don't think we should assume that a priori.

    And remember, this model is not about finding a military solution. It's about changing the structure of the insurgency toward either fragmentation (small enough to be controlled by law enforcement) or coalescence (few enough to negotiate a peaceful solution). What we have now is that middle ground, the worst possible force size.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:37:16 AM PDT

    •  Yes, I understand - good point

      And I noted the model used data from other conflicts. I'm certainly no military expert by any means but it would be interesting to look at all of the conflicts that the model used and ask one's self if a similar situation to Afghanistan existed for each of the examples. I strongly suspect the answer is "no".

      Again, I don't know for sure but I suspect there's no place on earth with a dynamic like Afghanistan and its relationship with Pakistan.

      With regards to the "fragmentation versus coalescence" model: If Pashtun/Taliban groups do either of those things, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect our enemies receiving substantial help that would come pouring over the border from Pakistan - which also has a huge Pashtun population.

      Of the two scenarios, it would seem we'd almost want them to coalesce because our military (seems to me anyway) is more geared to making war against armies rather than small clusters of insurgents. i.e. we could bomb the hell out of some coalesced group of enemy fighters.

      Fragmentation, on the other hand, would seem more suited to the enemy's strategy - not to mention the terrain. I suspect they know that. If so, it would seem like common sense for the enemy to stay fragmented and fight a war of attrition in those hellish mountains -- a worse-case scenario for us -- all the while being re-supplied by Pakistani fighters.

      by Snud on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:49:56 AM PDT

      •  Again ... one step further ...

        ... this strategy isn't about a military solution like this:

        Of the two scenarios, it would seem we'd almost want them to coalesce because our military (seems to me anyway) is more geared to making war against armies rather than small clusters of insurgents. i.e. we could bomb the hell out of some coalesced group of enemy fighters.

        The goal is not to reshape the insurgency into a military enemy that our military can defeat.

        If they coalesce into a handful of large insurgent groups, that's a handful of leaders with whom to negotiate a peaceful solution. Right now there are too many insurgent leaders, each with his own militia that is too big to be controlled by law enforcement, all of whom are vying for dominance with the government in Kabul, with us, and with each other. There's no way to get a negotiated peace out of that; there are just too many cooks in that kitchen, each trying to make a different dish.

        Conversely, if they fragment into smaller groups that can better hide from a larger military force, they fall into the size that can be controlled by law enforcement techniques. They're no longer real militias. They're just small criminal gangs.

        Either way - fragmenting or coalescing - we and the Afghan people have a much better possibility of a peaceful solution.

        Good morning! ::hugggggs::

        by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:23:17 AM PDT

    •  Iraq "fit" because bribery and Iranian clerics..

      changed the whole game.

      -- Petraeus tossed out $30,000,000-a-month to the Sunni sheiks. That is one helluva "awakening."

      -- Similarly, the Shi'ia clergy forced a Peace on the main mosques. One guess is that they were afraid of seeing a second civil war amongst the Shi'ia themselves.

      Its easy to kid yourself with numbers.

      BTW: the situaiton in Afghanistan is fueled by the poppy/heroin trade. Has been since 2005, when ISAF was tricked or dummied themselves into pursuing a poppy "eradication" policy with a budget of $150,000,000.

      That's $150-million to fight an $80-billion-a-year criminal enterprise (street retail total.)

      How you model that ???

      =EQ=

      The GOPer Base

      by vets74 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:58:45 AM PDT

      •  That doesn't disprove his model.

        His model predicts that a larger force size compels the insurgency to either fragment into more-and-smaller groups, or coalesce into fewer-and-larger groups. Some of both happened in Iraq. Some coalesced and we bribed or negotiated with their leaders. Others fragmented and now Iraqi law enforcement have an easier time containing them.

        What his model says is that the force size we've had in Afghanistan since 2003, and had in Iraq until 2007, was exactly wrong: it enabled insurgent groups that were too big to be controlled by law enforcement, and too numerous to reach agreement by negotiation.

        Good morning! ::hugggggs::

        by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:27:19 AM PDT

        •  Go big or go home, 'cause ain't nuthin' in

          the  middle of the road 'cept a broken white line and dead armadillos.

          ;-)

          by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:06:05 AM PDT

        •  "Insurgent groups" =EQ= Our 2001/2002 allies.

          The poppy herders.

          The Kandahar Taliban.... OMG. Not !

          =EQ=

          The GOPer Base

          by vets74 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 09:10:09 AM PDT

  •  GREAT map! Thanks and totally swiped. n/t

    by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:10:41 AM PDT

•  I guess I will be the minority

  here and say I agree with President Obama.  I have no opinion on the number of troops being sent, but I don't think we can go into a country, muck around for 8 years the way Cheney/Bush did and then say "Oops, darn!  My bad.  Buh-bye," and waltz away.  I'm sure President Obama knows this decision is going to be controversial.  He spent about 92 days considering his options which is about 90 times longer than Bush appears to have spent making any of his decisions.  I would have been ashamed if Obama just walked away now. Yes, our own country is in sorry shape right now, but we can't all be like the former administration and walk away from our messes and then criticize those who have to clean them up.  Now ask me what I think of former Vice President "Dick" Cheney............

  Hugs to all, and thanks, Crissie for this MF.  My day is always better when I start it with friends.

  by myrealname on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:37:55 AM PDT

  •  Good morning, myrealname

    I wasn't happy about the decision but I believe he has made the best decision he could.

    As I said the other day: "Happy endings were closed out the day we decided to invade."

    Hugggs!

    by winterbanyan on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:42:50 AM PDT

  •  The 90 days were not static, you can read in

    Pakistan newspapers about the increased size of the embassy compound.  Loose lips sink ships and all that, but there is an increased pressure on the Pentagon not to foul this up.

    by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:46:03 AM PDT

  •  OMG........ an adult.

    Wow.

    =EQ=

    The GOPer Base

    by vets74 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:59:32 AM PDT

  •  Given our history in Afghanistan since 1980 ...

    ... walking away would have destroyed our credibility as partners in any regional solution for decades to come. That presumes we will need to be partners in any regional solutions in the future. We may, but I'm not certain we will.

    I'm convinced President Obama made what he believes is the least-bad choice. I'm not certain for myself that it's the least-bad choice, but neither am I certain it's not the least-bad choice. I don't know enough to have that kind of certainty, either way. But I'm convinced President Obama believes it's the least-bad choice.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:31:32 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for that, myrealname

    I had the same thoughts about Iraq.  We have a crushing responsibility still to the Iraqi people.  All the money and all the time in the world could not possibly make amends for the damage we have wreaked.

    by Gustogirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:21:47 AM PDT

•  There are no consequences to increasing...

  The force size, irrespective of the science?

  That left two options: "get out and damn the consequences," or "get big enough to change the mathematics of the conflict." A larger force compels the insurgencies to respond in one of two ways:

  it occurs to me that there may be potentially sweeping and dire consequences for America as a result of the troop increases.

  The only argument I have heard that makes any sense to me under current circumstances is in the context of Pakistan's nukes.

  by averageyoungman on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:39:06 AM PDT

  •  Of course there are consequences.

    He was speaking to the people who would bear the most direct consequences, and he all but said that he was sending some of them to die. I wish I were certain that this is the least-bad option, or that it isn't the least-bad option. I don't know enough to have that kind of certainty.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:34:05 AM PDT

    •  Sure sounds a lot to me like...

      Many of us are willing to modify semantics to make war more palatable.

      The science is interesting, and thanks for the diary. I am merely making an observation.

      by averageyoungman on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 10:26:42 AM PDT

•  This is science ???

  Really ?

  And where is this notion cast into a demographic model of Afghanistan that incorporates spacial topography ? Detailed sub-models for local conflicts ?

  What are the contact points ?

  What is the role of the central government ?

  Since we're doing herding with the diff-e matrix -- as a proxy for back-tracking -- what difference does it make to add bloodhounds and professional back-tracking to the model ?

  What kind of force multiplier is a bloodhound-centric Combat Tracking Team ?

  Do you have a system that supports doing Monte Carlo runs ?

  What are the determinant factors for a Second Generation for such a Monte Carlo system ?

  BTW: Wargaming is a tough piece of brain work and computer application design. Has been since the wargaming machine at AFDSC down in D Level's basement got specialized drivers to access disks in whole cylinder chunks and in parallel. (Guess who wrote that channel driver....)

  But at least the amateurs are thinking. Worse things happen.

  =EQ=

  The GOPer Base

  by vets74 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:40:16 AM PDT

  •  I remember all the justicfications for VietNam

    It all thured into genuine Bull Sh*T! Enough B.S. to bury thousands of American soldiers under.

    by eddieb061345 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:07:09 AM PDT

    •  60,000 U.S. -- 2,600,000 Vietnamese.

      Keep a sense of proportion there.

      60,000 is a couple years of car wrecks or shooting each other.

      2,600,000 is a genocide. On the scale of things in S. Vietnam, a Shoa.

      =EQ=

      The GOPer Base

      by vets74 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 09:13:32 AM PDT

  •  More variables and more detail do not ...

    ... guarantee better science. Sometimes they just gum up the analysis with extraneous data.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:35:08 AM PDT

•  late arriving, just enuf to huggrectip

  hugg!
  rec
  tip

  rushes away after almost all nighter to present the object on which all night was spent.

  hope that huggrectip does not admit to meaning unforeseen, or if it does, it is spew worthy.

  consider also

  rectiphugg
  tiprechugg
  huggtiprec
  etc.

  there's a spew in there somewhere.

  by BlueStateRedhead on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:41:45 AM PDT

  •  Huggs, BSRH

    Have a good day, hope the presentation goes well :)

    by winterbanyan on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:44:37 AM PDT

  •  I'd recommend staying away from

    hugtiprec.

    Sounds a little...risque.

    by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:50:35 AM PDT

    •  At least it doesn't have alternate pronunciations

      rectiphugg recti-phugg
      tiprechugg tipre-chugg
      huggtiprec hugg-tiprec.

      ;^)

      by Orinoco on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:09:45 AM PDT

  •  Happy that you could stop by for a bit. :)

    Always a delight to see you, BSRH. :)

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:35:59 AM PDT

•  Has anybody got a list of the 48 coalition

  members spoken of last night and by Biden this morning?

  by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:54:02 AM PDT

  •  Is the another Coalition of the willing? n/t

    by eddieb061345 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:01:02 AM PDT

    •  NATO, AZPAC, Georgia I know

      a few E. European nations...probably Palau, our bff-forever.

      Just wanting to see if there are any Egypts or Malaysias.

      by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:04:00 AM PDT

      •  India's ponying up a lot of $'s and trying to

        stay below radar, it's them right next door if Pakistan implodes. I haven't heard about any moderate muslim nations kicking in or weighing in.

        by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:15:36 AM PDT

    •  I'm not coming anywhere close to 48....

      Turkey

      Turkey has 780 military personnel in Afghanistan and commands the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Wardak province, approximately 24.8 miles (40 kilometers) west of Kabul in November 2006.[46]
      [edit] India

      India has deployed around 380 commandos from the Indo-Tibetan Border Police to protect members of India's Border Roads Organization from attacks by the Taliban.[47] The BRO is working on the 218-km Zaranj-Delaram highway, a strategic road that will connect Kandahar to Iran border.[48]

      The Colombian government plans to deploy around 100 forces in Spring of 2009. These forces are expected to be demining experts. Colombia will also be the first Latin American country to deploy forces to the ISAF

      As of January 2009 its troops number around 55,100[3] from 26 NATO, 10 partner and 2 non-NATO / non-partner countries,[3] including contributions from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Poland and most members of the European Union and NATO also including Australia, New Zealand, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Singapore.[4] The intensity of the combat faced by contributing nations varies greatly, with the United States, United Kingdom and Canada sustaining substantial casualties in intensive combat operations.

      by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:13:45 AM PDT

  •  All I could find, and doubt it is updated:

    ISAF wikipedia article

    by gereiztkind on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:37:57 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, I saw that and the Order of Battle entry

      # 1 Overall command and control

        * 1.1 International Security Assistance Force
         * 1.2 U.S.-led Coalition

      # 2 United States # 3 Australia # 4 United Kingdom # 5 Canada # 6 Czech Republic # 7 Denmark # 8 Germany # 9 France

         * 9.1 Army (Land)
         * 9.2 Air Force
         * 9.3 Task Force Arès
         * 9.4 Navy

      # 10 Belgium # 11 Lithuania # 12 Netherlands # 13 New Zealand # 14 Poland # 15 Italy # 16 Turkey # 17 India # 18 Norway # 19 Portugal # 20 Spain # 21 Romania # 22 Estonia # 23 Finland

      by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:42:07 AM PDT

•  I'm certain that I agree with him.

  I thought the speech was a brilliant classroom instruction of how we got here and why we need to do this.  

  by rainmanjr on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:57:53 AM PDT

  •  I'm certain I trust him. n/t

    by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:16:36 AM PDT

  •  I just don't know enough specific ...

    ... military, political, and cultural information to be certain ... either way. There was no way President Obama could give all of that detail in a speech that would last less than a month. I'll have to undertake a lot more study to become as certain as you are.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:38:38 AM PDT

•  Why not use the Russian model

  If anyone wishes to apply scientific models here why not study the "Real" past. There are so many holes in your "Science" a sive would hold water better. The reality is the Afghans have been through this before. This is their Country and as we increase our Military the resentment towards us will grow the Cities will become a hot bed of IEDs and suicide bombers. A national resistance will be born! It will focus on the "US installed Carazi Govt". Every afghan will become a threat. Shall I go on? One speech doesn't do it for this old disabled Vietnam Vet. I fear Obama's pledge to have us out by 2011 is more wishful thinking than a"date certain" we can believe in!

  by eddieb061345 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:59:00 AM PDT

  •  The country is so fragmented by it's nature and

    the ethnic divides, I'm not sure that we're going to provoke that coordinated  a response. I was glad of Obama's mention of Viet Nam being a false equivalency. In 'Nam they were one people with a long history. In Afghanistan the different tribes have traditionally been both separate and opposed, that engenders a different problem and approach. Granted if we were as heavy handed as the Soviets, we could solidify a universal opposition, but I don't think we've done that and from what I do understand of what the president's proposing we will hopefully avoid that particular trap.

    by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:24:13 AM PDT

  •  Do you see a proliferation ...

    ... of more insurgent groups of roughly similar size as now exist? If so, then yes, this must multiplies both problems. But I'm not sure how many more Afganis want to be part of an insurgency. Given that those who do will have to operate against larger U.S. units, that leaves the two choices Dr. Gourley offered: (a) fragment into small enough groups that they can evade our military, but those smaller groups will be small enough to control with law enforcement; or, (b) coalesce into large enough groups that they can fight our military, but that means fewer insurgent leaders with whom to negotiate a solution. Either of those is a better situation than what we now face.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:42:22 AM PDT

•  your science makes sense if

  defeating the Taliban fighters is essential to US security.

  A few weeks ago I wrote a diary arguing that we needed to maintain some form of military presence in the Af-Pak region, and I am still of that opinion. There was, and is, no doubt in my mind that the 9-11 plot originated in Afghanistan when Khalid Sheik Mohammad brought his idea to Bin Laden. I also had no doubt that the attack on the USS Cole originated there. We simply cannot afford to let the Bin Laden group come up with another successful plot. Bin Laden's direct leadership was behind all of the sophisticated attacks on the US and the various internet-inspired wannabes, like the London subway bombers or the Fort Hood shooter, will not be able to present major existential threats to the US.   So, to some extent I agree with you but...

  There is really only one justification for the strategy that Obama offered us last night: That there is still a threat to the US originating in that region. But it appears to be based on the questionable premise that Al Queda needs a sizeable base from which to launch a major attack on the US.

  If the threat is simply another 9-11, which consisted of having four guys take flying lessons and another 14 arm themselves with box-cutters, then this kind of threat could obviously originate anywhere. Al Queda would not require a substantial base of any kind. However, closely monitoring all travel, and communications, in and out of Pakistan would do much to prevent future low-tech terrorists from contact with Bin Laden and his people.

  The real existential threat to the US, of which Obama is certainly very conscious , is that Al Queda could obtain nuclear weapons from sources in Pakistan or the former Soviet Union. I am not talking about a lengthy process of building reactors, as Iran is doing, but simply obtaining a complete nuclear device. Here, too, a substantial base would not be necessary. The problem for Al Queda would be finding a way to transport the device to its target, which means that a US base in Afghanistan would be the likely target. The US remains Bin Laden's central focus and, if he ever gets a nuclear weapon, he is not going to waste it on Islamabad or New Delhi. Having big bases in Afghanistan thus makes it easier for Al Queda - if and when they get hold of a nuclear device.

  I am not sure to what extent Obama's new strategy will address what I acknowledge is a genuine threat to the US from that region. However, he is no dummy and may well surprise us as this esclation plays out over the next 18 months. While I oppose his adding 30,000 troops, I still hope that Obama will do something more effective than what he seems to be doing.

  by Valatius on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:59:19 AM PDT

  •  The invisible 800-pound gorilla..................

    is Afghanistan's dominant role in the $80,000,000,000-a-year poppy/heroin trade.

    Very simply, the criminal gangs running this drug trade are big players -- on any scale. All out of Eastern Europe and Turkey.

    This wasn't really a war until 2005. At that point ISAF went nuts and adopted an "eradication" policy. This got aimed at the Karzai/Durranni's rivals.

    Taliban ???

    No-no-no.

    The Kandahar Taliban are maybe 1% of the problem/violence/political_whatever. Many local groups of drug gangsters call themselves "Taliban" because they admire Mullah Omar. He's a national hero. Deservedly -- for fighting the Russians, for driving out and killing the pro-Russian Afghans, and for just surviving with the americans after him.

    FOLLOW THE MONEY.

    Zeroeth Law of Politics. And of war.

    =EQ=

    The GOPer Base

    by vets74 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:24:52 AM PDT

  •  I agree with much of your assessment, but I

    object to your inclusion of Maj Hasan at Ft Hood in the terrorist equation. There is, to my knowledge, no evidence supporting that and much to support him being an unhappy, difficult man who slipped through the cracks of evaluation and acted out of his own issues. Just sayin'

    by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:31:53 AM PDT

    •  An imaginary Jihadist with a real gun.

      =EQ=

      The GOPer Base

      by vets74 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 09:14:49 AM PDT

      •  My point was that we don't know his motivations

        yet and I'm reluctant to speculate as to whether he was angry, scared, delusional or just really needed to get laid. Jumping to conclusions without facts is supposed to be the other guys. ;-)

        by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 11:16:17 PM PDT

  •  Not just the Taliban.

    If this were only about the Taliban - a single insurgency - there would be no need to escalate. We would instead negotiate a peaceful solution with the Taliban leadership.

    The problem is that right now there are dozens of insurgent cells - Taliban, tribal warlords, opium growers, etc. - all of whom have militias too large to be controlled by law enforcement, all of whom are vying with the Kabul government, us, and each other for dominance. That italicized phrase is the key. You can't negotiate a solution with dozens of actors who are all trying to win individually.

    We have to change that structure variable: either more-but-smaller insurgent groups that can be controlled by law enforcement, or fewer-but-larger insurgent groups with whom we have some chance of negotiating a peaceful solution.

    Either way, the objective, as President Obama made clear last night, is for U.S. troops to withdraw without leaving the Afghan people in a state of war.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:47:52 AM PDT

    •  Bin Laden's protectors

      I see Osama bin Laden as the central threat to the US and it is clear that locals are providing him cover in Waziristan. Before Bin Laden, Islamic terrorism was directed at Israel or Egypt and did not include the US unless we happened to present a good target, as in Beiruit in 1982. So, I am not sure why the US needs to deal with all these insurgent groups, most of whom would have no connection to Bin Laden. It's the ones protecting Bin  laden who should concern us, not the dozens of other violent bands.

      And as to leaving the Afghans in a state of war, I am afraid that is inevitable. Even if the Taliban, who are Pashtuns, are pacified, the Tajiks and Uzbeks would still not be happy to be ruled from Kabul. The whole counhtry should probably be split up among its neighbors of similar ethnicity, but that is not our decision nor responsibility.

      If we want to help end a state of war in any foreign country, I'd prefer we pay attention to the war that has taken 20,000 or more lives in  Mexico over the past few years.

      by Valatius on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:07:18 AM PDT

      •  I don't get what you're saying.

        Should we invade Mexico?  Should we pressure the Mexican gov't in some way?  Should we get involved somehow without an invitation?  

        How is that preferable to the two messes we're already in?

        by winterbanyan on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:15:53 AM PDT

        •  He may be advocating decriminalizing drugs. n/t

          by FarWestGirl on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 12:23:26 AM PDT

•  Interesting find. But Gourley said specifically

  in the piece that he didn't know causality.  In fact he showed that the Iraq surge correlated with a coalescing rather than a fragmenting of insurgent groups.  It's unclear whether that is bad from his description in this video, but to me, coalescing (increasing strength and organization) is a negative effect.  (6:30+ in the vid).

  Perhaps I misunderstood.

  Thanks for posting this. Again, interesting.

  by Terra Mystica on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:02:34 AM PDT

  •  Coalescing makes bigger targets, correct?

    by the fan man on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:14:07 AM PDT

    •  Targets for bribery............ yes, indeed.

      E.g., the Iraq Sunnis.

      =EQ=

      The GOPer Base

      by vets74 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:28:05 AM PDT

    •  That was his assumption, both in terms of standup

      enemies, and negotiating partners.  But it also means more dead people, from his data, due to bigger attacks.  More dead people in high profile attacks means more instability.  More instability means more troops, ad infinitum.

      The fewer negotiating partners part makes some sense, but Afghanistan has always been a highly fragmented society, so I'm not sure why we are trying to force a coalescence in order to negotiate with artificially large groups that have little precedent in Afghan society.  It's a contrived outcome to satisfy our Western sensibilities, if that is the intended result.

      Agathena just pointed me to an article in The Nation by William Polk describing this (among other things).  It's worth a read.

      by Terra Mystica on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:33:02 AM PDT

      •  Link? n/t

        by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:22:29 AM PDT

        •  Polk: ...

          http://www.thenation.com/...

          by Terra Mystica on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:54:13 AM PDT

          •  Thank you! n/t

            by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 11:23:19 PM PDT

  •  I'm not sure if coalescing will happen ...

    ... in Afghanistan, given the fragmented nature of the Afghan people. If it does, at least it reduces the number of people with whom we must negotiate a peaceful solution. I think it's more likely we'll see fragmentation into more-but-smaller groups, and the question will then be whether Afghan law enforcement can become able to contain those groups.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:50:13 AM PDT

    •  ::hugs back:: We ARE all in this together...

      regardless of the debate.

      by Terra Mystica on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:06:29 AM PDT

•  I wonder what the response would be

  If this speech were given by G.W. Bush? Would we see the same support for Bush boy? Just askin.

  by eddieb061345 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:11:23 AM PDT

  •  W would never have been able to pull off the

    impression of both caring and actually knowing what he was doing. He had his own track record and the attendant baggage. W had to depend on jingoistic rhetoric because that's the level his mind worked at, he lacked the depth to comprehend the complexity and nuance of the situation and it would have showed. He couldn't have given this speech. Just sayin' ;-)

    by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:39:10 AM PDT

  •  GWB ran to his own narcissism.

    He never, ever demonstrated the discipline and patience to generate a management analysis.

    Also, his people tried to tinker with in-country tactics and logistics over and over again. The worst of that was the amateur bungling of Paul "Bumfuck" Bremer.

    Bremer pretty much declared a personal war on the Sunni community. He had every one of the Sunnis fired from government and industry positions. He canceled their pensions -- down to old ex-postmen and city water department engineers.

    Without Bremer, there's no reason to think that we'd have seen an insurgency worth the title.

    Along with the Humvee jeeps -- that made it trivially easy to kill Americans -- the policies out of Bremer were what caused the "Messo-po-tamia" slaughter.

    Bush ??? Off on his own dream world, non-reader fantasies.

    =EQ=

    The GOPer Base

    by vets74 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:41:09 AM PDT

    •  His cabinet, and Rummy's Pentagon were

      "make no waves".  Gen. Franks threw a tantrum at the end and took his staff out ASAP, leaving a mess.

      Obama made sure everybody chimed in early and often, defended their position.

      This looks more organizational, and McCrystal was quick to be quoted "this will work", minutes after the speech.

      by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:47:28 AM PDT

      •  It could still be a "camel."

        =EQ=

        The GOPer Base

        by vets74 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 09:17:15 AM PDT

  •  So if your significant other says "I love you" ..

    ... you should disbelieve him/her because someone else said that before and didn't live up to it?

    No, I would not presume President Bush had spent the time studying the situation and reached what he thought was the least-bad option, because his history was of making ill-informed "gut" decisions. President Obama is not President Bush and does not have that same history.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:52:36 AM PDT

    •  "President Obama is not President Bush"

      eom

      by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:58:07 AM PDT

•  The Science Behind the Strategy

  sounds so much better than 'teh preyer meetin behind the strategery'.

  by gsenski on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:20:53 AM PDT

  •  LOL.

    No kidding!!!

    by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:39:19 AM PDT

  •  lol! n/t

    by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:40:10 AM PDT

  •  Pardon the bad pun, but ...

    ... a hearty "Amen" to that.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:53:16 AM PDT

  •  btw: Nominated for Top Comment

    Top Comments team.

    by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 09:09:18 AM PDT

•  Completely. Bullshit. "Science."

  There is no science here.  Just like "Christian Science," or "Economic Science," this is complete bullshit solely existing to support the status quo - in this case, the military industrial complex.

  The video is simply all about saying that the more attacks there are, the more people get killed.  Duh.  Everything else is just window dressing from a smart physicist who decided there's more money to be made in support of militarism than science.  Just like a large number of physicists who decided to make a financial killing by killing our financial markets by creating absurd financial derivatives.

  by h bridges on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:35:33 AM PDT

  •  Then you didn't watch closely.

    The data showed that the frequency of attacks was in inverse proportion to the size of attacks: lots of little attacks, or fewer but larger ones.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:54:34 AM PDT

•  God, I wish more could admit this

  while I'm not certain it's the option I'd have chosen were I in his position, neither am I certain I'd have chosen differently.

  It was a choice.  The other choices carried a price as well.  It's one thing to believe he may have made the wrong choice.  It's another to skid off into sanctimony and pretend that you could have made a choice that was morally clear.  Either way, people are going to suffer consequences.  It was always about choosing the less bad way or a way that seems like some good can come from something that is already bad.  Handing someone a conundrum and then hammering them for the choice they make just seems so cheap.  

  by Sun dog on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:46:06 AM PDT

  •  I share your wish.

    We could use a little less certainty, especially when the underlying situation is so manifestly uncertain.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:55:31 AM PDT

•  An honest question

  Did you support the Iraq surge?  If not why is this different?

  by pullbackthecurtain on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:50:16 AM PDT

  •  No, I didn't, but it was a gamble, and it worked

    The lessons learned make this gamble a little less risky, and lets just see if the Karzai in Kandahar doesn't get a bit of rough treatment.

    They saw casualties by IED's go down in November once that warehouse of fertilizer was uncovered, and that is good news.

    by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:54:53 AM PDT

    •  Hat Tip to Noor B, pointing out Pakistan response

      I was unfamiliar with the Pakistan press, picked the so called Daily Jang response to the speech, while Noor B found a better page of comments.

      http://forum.dawn.com/...

      * [new] A news org with a better reputation is Dawn. (1+ / 0-)

      Here's a link to the comments page.  It's not good, but it's not horrible either.  The first comment is down at the very bottom.

      It is the response I expected.  Dawn is a major English-language daily in Pakistan that has international reach.  As such, it reaches a well-educated audience.  The opinions are all over the place as to whether this surge is good, bad or indifferent as a strategy.  I see a basic pessimism that this simply won't work emerging from these comments.

      "Fighting Fascism is Always Cool." -- Amsterdam Weekly, volume three, issue 18 (-8.50, -7.23)

      by Noor B on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:39:55 AM PST

      by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:08:09 AM PDT

  •  No, I didn't, but ...

    ... I hadn't seen this research yet.

    As bbg replied, it may be the Iraq surge was a gamble that worked. The data suggest it was, but not quite as much of a gamble as we might have thought. This is not about a military victory. This is about changing the military conditions to enable either law enforcement to handle the more-but-smaller insurgent groups, or to negotiate a peaceful solution with the leaders of the fewer-but-larger insurgent groups. Right now, the data suggest, we're in the worst possible situation.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:58:45 AM PDT

  •  I didn't at first because it was initially a

    purely military rationale and I didn't see it having enough leverage to make a difference. What did make a difference and ended up being the reason it seemed to work was because of the 'Sunni Awakening', where we partnered with the locals and it became a broad based movement engaging the populace. Since the president has stated at the outset that we will be pursuing involvement with the local authorities, I am more supportive than I would otherwise be.

    by FarWestGirl on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:09:50 AM PDT

•  In evolutionary terms

  by changing the environment we force the denizens to adapt. They can evolve in more than the two ways described, though; one way might be to "hibernate" in Pakistan. And the law enforcement portion of dealing with fragmentation is questionable unless the Afghan government undergoes a radical transformation.

  In other words, if they evolve into small, uncoordinated groups, and no predator exists for small uncoordinated groups, they will flourish and come to dominate the environment.

  by blue aardvark on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:56:02 AM PDT

  •  That's also possible, however ...

    ... as noted in other replies, the "going to ground" of insurgents hiding in Pakistan or elsewhere for 24-36 months until we leave, then returning to resume their battles for dominance ... may not work for them.

    That strategy presumes that, given 24-36 months of comparative calm, the Afghan government will still not have stabilized and won the trust of the people, so that when the insurgent groups return they will still be able to operate freely and recruit among the local populace. Those conditions could change, given 24-36 months of comparative calm.

    Regardless, the data strongly suggest that sticking with our current force level will not work ... now or ever. It's exactly the wrong force level, leaving insurgent groups too large to be controlled by law enforcement, and too numerous to to agree on a negotiated solution.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:02:57 AM PDT

    •  I see that point

      but the track record of the United States in building up non-corrupt stable governments is not reassuring.

      by blue aardvark on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:07:41 AM PDT

•  Neither of your proposed insurgent responses ..

  .. leads to your conclusion, which is that we start bringing our troops home in 2011.  It is a non-sequitur.  One does not follow from the other.

  What CAN be said, definitively, is that more boots means more trampling.  Greater presence means greater insensitivity.  More weapons and targets means higher body counts ... and in this type of war, higher body counts measure not what you've won, but what you've lost.

  Throughout the history of mankind, the only time escalation has ever led to "victory" is when two uniformed armies met on a battlefield. Escalation in an insurgent war only leads to an escalation of the insurgency ...

  UNLESS you intend to commit the equivalent of genocide, annex Afghanistan to the US and put another star on our flag - which would be a different discussion altogether.

  by nyland 8 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:12:19 AM PDT

  •  I explained why it's not a non-sequitur.

    If the current insurgent groups fragment into more-but-smaller groups, that can be contained by Afghan law enforcement, U.S. troops can leave without abandoning the Afghan people to civil war.

    If the current insurgent groups coalesce into fewer-but-larger group, with whom we and the Afghan government can negotiate a peaceful solution, U.S. troops can leave without abandoning the Afghan people to civil war.

    Either option has a second condition to be met: (a) fragmentation requires the Afghan law enforcement to be capable of dealing with small criminal gangs, which is all the current militias would be after having fragmented; and, (b) coalescence requires successful negotiations for a peaceful solution.

    The key is that neither of those outcomes is possible given our current force size and the current structure of the insurgencies. That's what we have to change first.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:48:16 AM PDT

    •  I understood your "explanation" ...

      but perhaps I didn't make my point clear.  So long as the breath, depth and length of our occupation is tied to the actions or performance of the corrupt Karzai government, then we are not in control of our own destiny.  Ergo, non sequitur.  Our troop withdrawal is contingent, which means, by definition, "it does not follow"

      The optimistic assessments you project cannot belie the fallacy of thinking that escalation leads to anything but escalation.

      Conversely, we KNOW for a fact that military withdrawal from Afghanistan leads to a diminution of violence against the Afghan people in at least three different ways, to say nothing of reducing the backlash of unintended consequences.  

      by nyland 8 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:06:41 AM PDT

      •  This "then" is always true:

        ... then we are not in control of our own destiny.

        We're not. Ever.

        Good morning! ::hugggggs::

        by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:19:24 AM PDT

        •  The military IS ... ALWAYS !!!

          That was the point of the Powell Doctrine.  Whenever the US military, (i.e. the most powerful, best trained, best funded, most educated, best equipped and most motivated military on the planet... ;) is engaged abroad anywhere, anytime, then IT dictates the terms of its engagement.  As soon as the terms of its engagement are dictated by some entity other than our own forces, then quagmire can ensue.

          As we have now.

          by nyland 8 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 09:39:26 AM PDT

          •  War doesn't work that way.

            The idea that our military is so omnipotent that we alone can dictate the terms of engagement and the other people can do aught but get steamrolled is a neocon fantasy. War simply does not work that way. Welcome to the real world, where even the other people matter.

            by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 02:30:51 PM PDT

            •  WAR DOES ! ... "Nation Building" doesn't.

              The idea that our military is so omnipotent that we alone can dictate the terms of engagement and the other people can do aught but get steamrolled is a neocon fantasy.

              Agreed.  It does arise concurrently with what we've come to know as the neo-con fantasy. But the neo-con fantasy is predominantly civilian, whereas the Powell Doctrine is military.  One was spawned by the Joint Chiefs of Staff - the other in "think tanks" like PNAC.  

              After the Vietnam debacle, the great military minds of our country - in other words, the generals - got together to assess what had gone wrong.  Weren't we the stronger force?  Didn't we have superior weapons, superior technology, superior training, et al ??  Why is it that we could not prevail in Vietnam ???  Didn't we do a good enough job ???  Didn't the American public see that our body count ratios were 10 to 1 in our favor ??

              The answers to those questions, and the conclusions of those discussions, resulted in certain policy decisions.  Among them:
              Going to an all volunteer army.  
              Careful control and manipulation of the Fourth Estate.
              Greater emphasis on protection of the troops through enhanced technology.
              Raising recruitment standards.
              Spending billions on ad campaigns for recruitment and propaganda purposes. ("ARMY STRONG !" cost us 2 billion dollars)

              You get the idea.  These things, plus adherence to the Powell Doctrine, are the pillars upon which we expected to build our future, never again to find ourselves in another morass like Vietnam.

              Of course a certain amount of hubris is involved.  When you outspend the rest of the world combined, it would be a sad and poor Army if it expected to lose. But where the neo-con fantasy and the military vision diverge is in "nation building".

              Nation building is not a part of the Powell Doctrine.

              Exit strategy is.

              by nyland 8 on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 05:09:43 AM PDT

              •  The Powell Doctrine is interesting ...

                ... but it basically boiled down to "Let's only fight the wars we're sure to win quickly, then get out." As if any society in history hadn't tried some version of that. As if any society in history could achieve it ... except by avoiding war wherever possible.

                I agree we should avoid war wherever possible, precisely because war is always chaotic and unpredictable. There is at least one other group in the mix, and they will look for (and find!) ways to thwart your intentions. There's a marvelous line in a speculative history titled The Moscow Option, wherein British historian David Downing offers an alternative course that World War II might have followed. In the section dealing with the Pacific war, he drops this little gem (quoting from memory): "The American high command, always believing the military initiative is theirs by birthright...."

                Yes, that's a dig by a British historian, but it's a reasonable criticism. We tend to plan as if we're the only active participants and everyone else should/must/will simply react to what we do. But that isn't how the real world works, especially not in war.

                So no, we don't "control our own destiny" in this or any other war. We can influence outcomes, but we can rarely dictate them. The sooner we recognize that, the more productively we can negotiate more reasonable solutions rather than trying to "control our own destiny" by force of arms.

                by NCrissieB on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 07:07:44 AM PDT

                •  Acknowledged ...

                  And points taken.

                  If we really understand the Powell Doctrine (overwhelming force, well defined and achievable goals, exit strategy, etc.) we see that implicit in the whole idea is that the only wars we fight are the ones of our choosing.  When you really do have the most powerful (not largest, but superior in every measure of armament) military in the world, you should never be drawn into any genuine military conflict where you cannot prevail.  And clearly, that has been the case.  I remember vividly, when both Rumsfeld and Cheney were asked by the press in separate interviews whether or not we were "winning the war" in Iraq, both of them responded, essentially, "We must be winning.  We've never lost a single battle".

                  Well, of course they were right.  We've never "lost" a single battle ... except of course, the battle for the hearts and minds of a people that refuse to be occupied.  And therein lies the rub.  If the Powell Doctrine were strictly applied, we wouldn't be in either of the quagmires we're currently in.  When overwhelming force is coupled with an exit strategy, the very definition of our "war" becomes synonymous with "winning", because everything is on your terms.

                  But not occupation.  Not nation building.  That's where things quickly fall apart.  Because that's where you become subject to the terms of the occupied.

                  And they sometimes lob mortars into your "green zone".

                  But if you leave, they can't - which means you've "won".

                  What it all boils down to is this:  To stay is to "lose".  To leave is to "win".

                  Now how do we sell that to the American public?

                  by nyland 8 on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 07:54:42 AM PDT

•  Should be sent to all Armed Services Committee,

  by ronlib on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:35:35 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for the kind words. :)

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:49:18 AM PDT

    •  This hug fest is peachy.

      ask the Afghanistanians what they want:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

      I have said before that by installing warlords and drug traffickers in power in Kabul, the US and Nato have pushed us from the frying pan to the fire. Now Obama is pouring fuel on these flames, and this week's announcement of upwards of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan will have tragic consequences.

      Already this year we have seen the impact of an increase in troops occupying Afghanistan: more violence, and more civilian deaths. My people, the poor of Afghanistan who have known only war and the domination of fundamentalism, are today squashed between two enemies: the US/Nato occupation forces on one hand and warlords and the Taliban on the other.

      While we want the withdrawal of one enemy, we don't believe it is a matter of choosing between two evils. There is an alternative: the democratic-minded parties and intellectuals are our hope for the future of Afghanistan.

      It will not be easy, but if we have a little bit of peace we will be better able to fight our own internal enemies – Afghans know what to do with our destiny. We are not a backward people, and we are capable of fighting for democracy, human and women's rights in Afghanistan. In fact the only way these values will be achieved is if we struggle for them and win them ourselves.

      by scorpiorising on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:05:53 AM PDT

      •  And I disagree about this being ...

        ... fuel on the fire. The data suggest otherwise.

        Good morning! ::hugggggs::

        by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:09:48 AM PDT

        •  I guess we'll see, won't we...

          Nothing is stable over there, and war for stability is Orwellian. We should continue this debate though...

          by scorpiorising on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:12:02 AM PDT

          •  I agree we should continue the debate.

            And I've no doubt the debate will continue over the next 24-36 months of our involvement in Afghanistan. As I said in the diary, I'm not certain this was the least-bad option available, but neither am I certain it wasn't the least-bad option available. I wish I were more certain. Only time will tell.

            What I am convinced of, however, is that President Obama's decision was neither merely "three more Friedman Units" or "servile, gutless cowardice." He seems to have assessed the best information he could get, and reached what he believes is the least-bad option available to him.

            I hope he's right, and I'm willing to support the strategy until I'm certain enough to oppose it.

            Good morning! ::hugggggs::

            by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:18:16 AM PDT

            •  They haven't yet funded this surge though...

              the debate is not empty rhetoric. I will continue to lobby that the surge not be funded.

              by scorpiorising on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:34:45 AM PDT

        •  New strategy

          Back the local sheriff.  Replaces the Bush send in the Cavalry.  

          by Jim W on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 02:46:48 PM PDT

•  I'm not sure Dr. Gourley's analysis

  supports your conclusion on troop sizes. For one thing, our force size hasn't remained static, as this chart shows. It would be interesting to analyze Afghanistan the way he does Iraq, and look for any correlations with troop size, but he hasn't done that.

  by AaronInSanDiego on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:44:58 AM PDT

  •  This speech was given in February.

    He wasn't yet sure whether Iraq had stabilized enough that we could begin our withdrawal. It has since, and we have. And yes, I would love to see a more specific correlation between military force levels and his alpha value for Afghanistan. Perhaps he's done that. If so, I've not seen it.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:51:41 AM PDT

    •  This is important research, but

      clearly more work needs to be done before we can generalize anything about the optimum force size. Hopefully, the pentagon will make use of this analysis, if they haven't already.

      by AaronInSanDiego on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:41:37 AM PDT

•  Might want to study "science" of Russian defeat.

  What throws Dr. Gurley's faux "science of war" into the dustbin is the that US presence INCREASES TALIBAN forces. More Afghans sign up to fight the increased US invaders.

  US floods the nation with weapons which go immediately to the Taliban as the Afghan "Obama markets" (used to be "Bush Markets") demonstrate where you can buy just about any piece of US military equipment.

  The US creates more Taliban fighters and supplies them. That is the "science" of guerrilla war. They also don't "coalesce" or "disperse" as Dr. Gurley imagines, the blend into the local population. They ARE the local population.

  The Russians had their "surge" and left defeated. US will have it's surge and will leave defeated in 2011.

  Only good thing Obama did was put a firm time limit on US defeat in Afghanistan.

  by Besdeekian on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:19:15 AM PDT

  •  I've no idea whether Dr. Gourley's data ...

    ... includes the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. It may or may not. But the data are not limited to just Iraq and Afghanistan, nor even to conflicts with U.S. involvement, and they're remarkably consistent from conflict to conflict. Insurgencies that drag on have an alpha value of about 2.5. Push that up near 3 and the insurgency diminishes into a law enforcement problem; push it down near 2 and there are few enough actors that a negotiated solution is possible (though not guaranteed). A negotiated solution that includes a U.S. withdrawal - as happened with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan - can be termed a "defeat," or an "end to the conflict so the troops come home."

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:24:40 AM PDT

    •  Dr. Gurley doesn't really have any data.

      He seems clueless on empirical data on guerrilla wars in general and history of Afghan guerrilla wars in particular.

      A negotiated solution that includes a U.S. withdrawal - as happened with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan - can be termed a "defeat," or an "end to the conflict so the troops come home."

      Russians left Afghanistan in total defeat just as US did in Vietnam. History is clear on that.

      by Besdeekian on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:37:48 AM PDT

•  The real science

  The real science behind this business is the Lanchester equations (DE) expanded to cover red, white, and blue forces and additional terms to reflect the ability of white to convert (transform) into either red or blue.

  If you run this model as the Army has done. You will find the interference by one culture in another is always non-productive. The key is having a since for the host country that this war business is temporary, such as the French as we pass through on our way to Germany i.e. bounds to the DE.

  If there are no bounds, if the projected force is not seen as moving on, then the white (non-combatant) force turns red. So ineffect the simple degrading of the OPFOR in the Lanchester Equations does not occur.  The more we are there more the OPFOR grows.

  The only solution is to leave. Leave a note on the door saying "We've gone. Don't do it again or we'll be back."

  by bluetiger on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:29:53 AM PDT

  •  I understand the equations ...

    ... but there is an upper limit on the total OPFOR here - number of Afghanis willing to participate in insurgent groups - and it's likely we're at or near that upper limit already. This differs from the Soviet experience in that we've not seen tens of thousands of outside Islamic fighters flooding into Afghanistan, as happened (with U.S. assistance and funding) during the Soviet occupation.

    But your concern is valid and if the total OPFOR mushrooms in response to the increased U.S. force size, then obviously this will have been the worst possible choice.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:36:18 AM PDT

•  so what's the formula for troop levels?

  That's what this argument boils down to, an argument that 30,000 to 50,000 more troops would change the calculus.

  What if I said we needed 500,000 more troops to switch our strategy from limited war to full-scale war? What's the mathematics for calculating who is right?

  And then once we've done that, what's the mathematics for calculating whether the cost, from US leadership to detainee treatment to financial burdens to strain on the military, is worth it?

  This is not, as some have speculated, merely "another three Friedman Units."

  BTW, thanks for the implicit shout out :)

  I think what's wrong with the Gourley analysis is that Afghanistan isn't an insurgency. It's a civil war. And we can't decide whether we're on one side fighting the other sides, or whether we want to be a neutral arbiter mediating a peace on terms acceptable to the various factions. For example, women's rights is an obvious problem. Which drug warlords and Pashtun fighters like Western-style feminism? Drugs is another obvious problem. Which Afghans think alcohol should be legal and opium illegal?

  by washunate on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:36:18 AM PDT

  •  It is a civil war, yes.

    It's not a single insurgency. It's a civil war, and that's precisely the problem. If this were a single insurgency, we'd have a single set of insurgent leaders with whom to negotiate a solution. Instead there are dozens of groups, each too big to be controlled by law enforcement techniques, all vying with the Kabul government, us, and each other for dominance.

    That leaves two options: (a) get big enough to change the alpha structure variable and thus the conditions in which the civil war is perpetuating; or, (b) get out and leave the Afghan and perhaps Pakistani people to civil war. And the Pakistanis have nuclear weapons.

    I'm not certain which of those is the least-bad option. I'm convinced President Obama chose what he believes is the least-bad option.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:40:47 AM PDT

•  As is usually the case with junk science,

  any research goals are presumed to be valid before the data even gets analyzed. Even worse, in this case research goals are not even stated, and obviously, have never even been considered.

  Dr. Gourley's data show we have exactly the wrong force size in Afghanistan

  "Wrong size" for what? The research goal is presumed to be what? Occupation? Nation building? Control of insurgent groups? "Change the conflict" is a means, not a goal.

  SO WHAT IS THE GOAL? Let me suggest some valid ones.

  Making us safer from terrorism.
  Ending the brutal costs of a pointless war.

  Now stick your data into those goals and see where it leads.

  by jorogo on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 09:22:11 AM PDT

•  Such reluctance

  I am so reluctant to comment on war diaries because on one hand I want to destroy the people who attacked the WTC and killed a few friends of mine, two on the NYFD and one was a waiter working in the building, on the other hand ... what do we really gain from this war? Are we really preventing future attacks? Where is the transparency we were told about? Last night the President mentioned that there are definite threats against us, shouldn't we be aware of that by now? I am really torn. I am not into war at all and think that if you can't settle something diplomatically it is not meant to be settled.

  Hey, I was looking for you guys at six this morning -- but then had to go.  

  by Union Review on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 10:31:00 AM PDT

  •  Union Review:

    We had a guest diarist who did not show up on time so this emergency replacement diary did not get posted until 6:30.

    So I guess you can't quite set your clock by Morning Feature. ;-)

    btw - I share your squeamishness about commenting in war diaries (kind of like the HCR diaries were about a month ago). But this conversation stayed mainly on topic and covered a lot of different points of view.

    This was a GOOD place to have this conversation because we try to be polite and assume the best intentions of everyone who comments.

    by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 11:00:04 AM PDT

    •  It is a good place

      to have this conversation ... I definitely seemed safe enough to even say what I said here. Other places I do a drive-by comment of two or three words. (I didn't know until the other day that I was doing "drive-by" comments, new term for me).

      I hope you are having a nice day.

      by Union Review on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 11:07:44 AM PDT

      •  Since it is safe

        I just want to say that I think it is as  important to fight the war we are having at home as it is to consider the one(s) overseas. We have so many unemployed people in this country and even more losing their jobs by the day. While this is happening, bailed out companies like GM and Chrysler-Fiat are cutting costs and getting rid of well-paid middle class jobs in the carhaul industry. I just put up a diary about this, but I am doubtful it will get any attention in this Obama-field we have today.

        by Union Review on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 11:45:57 AM PDT

        •  Link here

          Union Review’s Diaries

          I just heard on my Air America station that Congress is considering a special fee on stock transactions that will raise $240 billion dollars a year to be poured into creating jobs.

          Now that would be great news.

          We need to get people back to work now.

          by JanF on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 11:55:04 AM PDT

          •  Thanks for this

            I just talked with people here at the union and we are evidently working on this with another department. I just commented a few minutes ago where you left this on my diary, which I thank you for, again.

            by Union Review on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 12:36:31 PM PDT

  •  From President Obama's speech last night ...

    ... the objective seems to be a U.S. withdrawal that does not leave the Afghan people in a state of civil war. I'm not sure that civil war can be quelled if we stay for 24-36 months, but I am confident the civil war in Afghanistan will continue if we leave now.

    If, as many believe, that Afghanistan civil war will have to be fought and settled by Afghanis eventually - no matter what we do - immediate withdrawal would be the least-bad option.

    If there's a possibility we could help quell that before we withdraw, as President Obama and his national security team seem to believe, then having destabilized the previous government we should try to stabilize a successor before we leave.

    It's not a simple situation with simple, certain outcomes.

    Good afternoon! ::hugggggs::

    by NCrissieB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 03:00:36 PM PDT