I support Obama (and voted for him in the recent Democrats Abroad
primary); but one thing I'm worried about is Obama's willingness to
migrate the Iraq war to Afghanistan.
Here in Canada we're more familiar with it because the Canadian Forces
have been doing a lot of the heavy lifting in the combat-plagued
south, and Parliament is about to extend Canadian participation till
2011.
>>more below
From what I've been hearing, the socio-political-military situation in
Afghanistan is getting ever worse. Seeing that as the right war at the
right place at the right time, Obama could wind up with an LBJ-type
situation, in which a strong Administration start is ruined by another
Vietnam. Those ever-lovin' Afghans have historically given the Brits and
Russians an awful lot of grief. Is Obama next?
PS: It's those darn liberal-change Democrats that have gotten us into all
the major wars: Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ.
(While Hillary voted for Iraq, oddly enough Bill is the exception to
the preceding list--and he should have done something about Rwanda,
a la strong UN peacekeeping. Carter has a mixed record: Nobel Peace
prize for Israel-Egypt; but he, with Obama-adviser Brzezinski, set the
stage for the Afghanistan quagmire and all its blowback, right up to
9-11.)
Which is why I contributed to Dennis Kucinich: in this historical era,
when has one ever heard a presidential candidate--Kucinich!-- make a
central campaign thesis about renouncing war as an instrument of
policy?
(Well, MacArthur did it for Japan's Constitution, but successive US
administrations have tried to reverse that ever since. As well,
nowadays the US is trying to coax Germany to join the Afghanistan War
big time.)