The death of nine U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan Sunday in a Taliban attack underscored the deteriorating security situation there, and the collateral costs of the Bush administration’s ongoing distraction in Iraq.
Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said recently that the United States faced a “very complex problem” in Afghanistan that required a buildup of U.S. forces — but a surge in Afghanistan couldn’t happen as long as U.S. troops were tied down in Iraq.
Barack Obama called Monday for sending an additional two combat brigades to Afghanistan as part of a refocused war-on-terror strategy. “Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and al-Qaida has a safe haven,” Obama wrote in a New York Times commentary. “Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been.”
John McCain said that the “status quo is not acceptable” in Afghanistan and has pledged three more combat brigades of about 3,500 troops each.
40 Comments
Monday morning quarterbacking - arm chair Generaling again Dr. Scholfield?
Perhaps you would like to try your hand in some engineering on the Mars Mission?
Scavenging the graves of soldiers for news only serves to make a ghoul of yourself. Objectivity begins of realizing where your at and what you actually control.
BUT BUT BUT Iraq is the front in the war on Terrorism! I know because Bin Laden said so and he is calling the shots in this war! Dance Puppet dance..
Of all things I have hear to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq the claim that we are doing so because Bin Laden said it is the front is as stupid as it comes. Those repeating it as a reason think the people are even stupider then the given reason.
Dog, I know your job keeps you busy and you maybe don’t have time to read here often or you wouldn’t ask — the people are that stupid! Right here on this board all the same “reasons” are repeated and believed. Look up at the first response here on this thread. It will be repeated all day. Either a defense where there is no rational defense or an attack of the messenger. It’s all they’ve got and they cling to it tightly.
Not MY war. Not my problem.
Outside the idiot in charge and his puppets, most people are more rational in their thinking. bush has to call it something different — “general time horizon,” but his hand is being forced and his options are fewer now that most people see him and his for the idiots they are.
————
Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.
http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSL1980090
Randy,
I think you forgot to proofread your thread today.
Did you just seriously use the word “distraction” to describe Iraq?
No bias there…. *Sarcasm*
War? There’s a war in Afghanistan?
Why didn’t anyone tell me about this? This is terrible!
I don’t wanna hear it! There is NO WAR in Afghanistan! We won that war in 2001! Everything’s cool! Hamad Karzai is in charge!
Sticks fingers in ears LALALALALALALALALALA!
/sarcasm off
It seems to be beyond disingenuous that some on the right scream when war dead are mentioned, as if ignoring the dead will just make them “go away.”
The fact of the matter is that more are dying everyday and pretending that they are not won’t change that fact.
The miserable Bush misadventure in Iraq has allowed the Taliban to reestablish a position in Afghanistan and no we are faced with refighting a war that we won in 2001, in addition to dealing with the Iraqi disaster.
Great, good job, George…………………………….
I sincerely hope that most of you have taken the time to read Barack Obama’s editorial from the New York Times. This is not a sound byte blip, but a well reasoned position, one that I fully support.
It (along with me) will draw fire from the left and from the right, but it is a sensible plan that put the emphasis back to where it should have been from the beginning - al Qaeda and the terrorist network.
For those of you not wanting to scroll up - here is the link again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Many terrorists have been killed in Iraq.
Many of those terrorists came from other places, including Afghanistan.
It is interesting that you libs do NOT want troops in Iraq but you DO want troops in Afghanistan.
The current government of Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9-11.
Yes, the Taliban is regrouping, but had we stayed in Afghanistan in larger numbers, you liberals would tell us that our troops “cause” insurgency.
So, if we send troops, we “cause” terrorism.
So, if we don’t send enough troops we “cause” terrorism.
Libs, you are contridicting yourselves and you are not even smart enough to realize it!
As many of you have said, “terrorism is NOT a country!”
Therefore, as long as we are killing terrorists, it really does not matter where we kill them, does it?
“It is interesting that you libs do NOT want troops in Iraq but you DO want troops in Afghanistan.”
What is “interesting” about that, Rosseel? We never should have been in Iraq in the first place. As for your claim that “many yada, yada” the US military has said that foreign fighters in Iraq totaled less than 5% of the insurgency.
“you liberals would tell us that our troops “cause” insurgency”
Typical con ploy - trying to tell us what we think.
“Libs, you are contridicting yourselves and you are not even smart enough to realize it!”
Strawman argument - and not even a good attempt.
“Therefore, as long as we are killing terrorists, it really does not matter where we kill them, does it?”
I realize that this point will be lost on you, Rosseel, but insurgency does not equal terrorist.
They may employ terrorist tactics but their motivation is quite different that that of al Qaeda.
You remember al Qaeda, don’t you Paul the Con?
You know, the folks that ACTUALLY attacked us?
WS
Saddam Hussein was listed by the Clinton State Department as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” Saddam paid money to terrorists to attack Israel, killing American and Israeli citizens.
How much fear would any terrorist have of the United States if we continued to allow Saddam to shoot at our aircraft, and to finance terrorism?
Aren’t you liberals a bit “racist”? Maybe we could invent a new term: “Countryist” — you seem to want to attack countries from which the terrorists came, on 9-11, rather than attack the ideology which produces terrorism.
You are an idiot, Rosseel.
Aren’t you liberals a bit “racist”?
Explain that, moron.
“How much fear would any terrorist have of the United States if we continued to allow Saddam to shoot at our aircraft, and to finance terrorism?”
Point one - that was NOT the justification for war and you know it. The justification was WMD and we now know that the Bush team cherry picked the intel to suit their desire for war with Iraq.
“finance terrorism?”
Point two - paying a bounty to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The Palestinians and al Qaeda are two vastly different groups.
“you seem to want to attack countries from which the terrorists came, on 9-11, rather than attack the ideology which produces terrorism.”
The ideology? Try again, idiot, “Iraqi insurgency” and “al Qaeda” are two different animals.
Damn, you are such a worthless partisan hack, Rosseel.
And just once, just one god damn time, I want a straight answer from one of these good Republicans - who “created” Saddam Hussein?
Well, the answer is Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush. He was an American ally until 1991. The US supported him in the Iraq/Iran War.
Was Hussein a friend of Israel at that point?
Hell, no.
Did Hussein support Arafat and the Palestinians at that point?
Hell, yes.
What changed?
Damn.
“rather than attack the ideology”
By the way, Paul the Partisan Hack, where are you going to fire the missile to attack the ideology?
WS
There are LOTs of Dems who said Saddam had WMD’s and that THAT was the primary reason for the war.
Bush NEVER made WMD’s the primary reason for war with Iraq. (Actually, we were already at war. Bill Clinton was, legally, at war with Iraq.)
WS
We have no permanent allies.
We have no permanent enemies.
We have only permanent interests.
The Soviet Union was a grave threat to the United States and we had to do what ever was necessary, to survive.
With the end of the Soviet Union, things changed.
Having (finally) heard Obama’s foreign policy speech (I read the NYT editorial immediately, but there wasn’t much there), I’m in general agreement with his approach, but I am bothered by his continual references to “Al-Qaeda and the Taliban”–as if they were two sides of the same coin or something.
I would like to hear more about how what he plans to do in Afghanistan. Certainly, we have strategic interests there, and we owe that people of that nation some attempt to salvage their country, but the fact is that it’s been in chaos for years. Our invasion merely traded a corrupt, oppressive regime, for a corrupt impotent regime–the warlords control the provinces. Unfortunately, the bigger bombs and higher body counts in Iraq pushed it out of the headlines.
I’m a detail wonk, ya know? I care about facts.
P.S. I’m also a lazy proofreader, but blog posts aren’t a high priority. . . .
Had bush of stayed in Afghanistan and cleaned it up, then made it a ‘model for the mid-east, Iraqis would’ve been on our side if we’d have then gone into Iraq.
Instead he put Afghanistan on the back burner, and was surprised when it caught fire.
WPE, Worst Commander=in=Chief ever.
“Bush NEVER made WMD’s the primary reason for war with Iraq.”
Really?
So give us the REAL reason that Bush wanted war with Iraq, Rosseel.
Don’t be bullskiting around - give us a straight answer - what was the reason for war?
“I would like to hear more about how what he plans to do in Afghanistan.”
*********************
One can only guess that listening to top military advisors, rather than firing them by retiring them, would be good improvement. I don’t believe for a moment that there weren’t able American military leaders who could either have prosecuted these wars successfully or not done it at all. I do believe that those capabable leaders were summarily let go when doing it right didn’t mesh with 1) doing it on the cheap and 2) doing it for the wrong reasons as conceived by the Bush administration. “The bigger bombs and higher body counts in Iraq” and using stop-loss to make up for four years of not meeting our armed services recruiting goals don’t seem to have been the answer to success in Iraq.
“The Soviet Union was a grave threat to the United States”
You can’t really be as stupid as to compare the USSR to Iraq, can you Rosseel? I realize that you are a couple of moldy slices of bread short of a loaf, but even YOU can’t be as idiotic and partisan as to compare Iraq to the Soviet Union.
So, Mister Partisan Hack, just WHY did we wage war on Iraq?
More importantly, did George include those “reasons” in his justification for war, and if he didn’t, wouldn’t he be a @!*%^@@%$ LIAR?
Reasons for war with Iraq?
Was that 18 United Nations Resolutions violated?
Saddam also violated a cease fire agreement, repeatedly.
Clinton said that “regime change” was United States Policy in Iraq.
There were many reasons stated, WS.
Go back and look.
WS
First, you ask WHY former United States Presidents were ever cooperative, with Saddam Hussein.
I give you the reason: The USSR!
During the cold war, we had to do what we had to do, we did not have the luxury of making sure all of our allies were saints.
I NEVER compared Iraq to the USSR. READ would you?
I answered YOUR question: we had to cooperated with unsavory people during the cold war.
Actually, diplomacy always requires that we deal with unsavory people.
“There were many reasons stated, WS.”
For once in your miserable life, Rosseel - a straight answer - why did Bush go to war with Iraq?
“I give you the reason: The USSR!”
In other words, the Republican presidents were hypocrites - they supported an anti-Israel, pro-terrorist dictator that gassed his own people and went to war against his neighbor, Iran, because it was CONVENIENT?
And now we should believe that it was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO GO TO WAR WITH SADDAM IMMEDIATELY?!?!?!?
Hypocrite.
“First, you ask WHY former United States Presidents were ever cooperative, with Saddam Hussein.”
Cooperative?
We provided him with arms and military assistance, for Christ’s sake.
Cooperative?
WE created the son of a bitch and we armed the bastard.
Christ.
Franklin says: “There were many reasons stated.”
——–
And each time one proved to be a lie the idiot in charge gave a new reason. We ALL remember there were many reasons stated and none justified invading let alone occupying Iraq.
We’re still waiting for what we’re winning, what success looks like, when do we know we’ve won.
Maybe you have to have a concrete reason for going to war (which we never had!) before you can define victory.
We could look around to see what has been accomplished in Iraq — make that the reason for starting the war, deem it done and declare victory! Today! Tomorrow? Yesterday?
There is only one reason for the continued efforts in Iraq and that is to save nation and Bush face!
The reason for the invasion was “perpetual revolution” ah I mean “perpetual Democracy” both have the same intent and wording except for one word which is substituted. For Iraq then Iran and then Syria and the list continues.
Those that attacked us are stronger then they were before they attacked us and still a threat.
There is one of the biggest problem with Iraq and Bin Laden wishes to thank Bush and the Neo-cons for their help. I was going to address Paul’s assertions but they were addressed and the errors in the thought process were pointed out. Insurgents do not equal foreign terrorists its a game of semantics and a rose by any other name does not change the reality.
And yes Linda I do notice and often wonder how anyone whom would be so simple mind can figure out how to turn on a computer?
Clark I will agree with up on Obama and his plans now I am still wondering if he means what he said?
If find it odd when the claim is made that McCain is the more knowledgeable about military and foreign affairs. McCain states he knows how to win wars, but his statements on Iraq and how to win is.
“Keep troops there till the enemy runs out of bullets and are forced to surrender because they can not kill anymore U.S. Troops!” . Does he really think that pulling out of Iraq would be any more of a boost to the cause of the terrorist then us being there has been? I mean if Bin Laden claims we are wanting to destroy the Moslem countries and then we attack and occupy a Moslem country that did nothing what so ever to us.
That is pretty good evidence in favor of Bin Laden’s statement.
Just affirms what we and Obama’s been saying. Iraq is not war on terroirism central. Even if some al-quida guy and bush said so.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080720/ap_on_re_mi_ea/petraeus_interview_8
So either we continue to play Whack-a-mole with Al-quida, or go after them where they live.
I believe Israel has broken more U.N. resolutions than Iraq ever did.
Linda
SEVERAL Democrats gave us many reasons to go to war with Iraq.
Have you EVERY called the pro-Iraq War Democrats “idiots”???
WS
Some of the Moslems that Bill Clinton helped have turned on us, as well.
Tough choices have to be made, at times.
Again, the Soviet Union was a very dangerous enemy. Our very survival depended on winning the Cold War.
We HAD to make alliances with unsavory people, to win the Cold War.
Every President, Democrat and Republican alike, has pretty much understood this fact.
honestly loved bumping into this article.
Please share your delight with Keyla’s excellent post by using a junk email address, and sending large attachments to:
postmaster@amsterdamroom.com
Thanks!