Letters to the Editor
-
Not as big of threat as it may sound
I greatly suspect that Sen. Obama's comments on military action upon receiving "high-level intelligence" on Osama bin Laden's whereabouts are mainly for political consumption back home. Not that the Afghanistan/Pakistan theater would not be his main focus -- he's been clear about that for some time -- but what action he takes is likely to be more supple than has traditionally been American policy (particularly contrasting with the Bush Administration's shoot-before-asking approach).
It would probably be best for all concerned if Sen. Obama didn't rattle sabers in that direction, especially when it comes to a question of the Pakistani sovereignty (especially in the isolated North West region), but he's approaching the heart of an election in which U.S. politicians who appear to "soft" allow the fear card to be played against them. That Sen. Obama has yet to find the best tone for his policy is clear -- it is in this regard where his inexperience shows most greatly -- but he promises overall a more nuanced policy.
-
American conflation of "Taliban" with "Al-Qaeda" is coming home to roost ...
I'm not sure what or who the Taliban 2008 is without Al-Qaeda.
Making the two joined at the helped rationalize an invasion and coup in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, Karzai's regieme has failed to deliver -- it is overextended, underfunded, apparently corrupt and/or badly manned and seems to have been unable to cope with a resultant resurgence of the warlords and the Taliban (although it may be that Karzai enlisted the Warlords, shades of the Sunni tribeleaders in Iraq, only to gradually lose their support, I'm unclear.)
I read of a resurgence of the Taliban and cannot discern if this is due to a Taliban "reign of terror" in which peasants shelter tyrants having no alternative or if again (as they came to power initially) the Taliban represents a choice, possibly better and again some protection from the ruthless self-interested warlords.
America and Americans appear to find "islamic fundamentalism" generically distasteful, threatening, and unwelcome even when it may represent a popular alternative locally. Karzai's star in all circles seem to be waning -- which may or may not be "fair" - but wWhat will we do if he continues to fail and the Taliban seize the day, rally allies, etc.
Will I be shouting "Afghanistan for the Afghans!" at the next antiwar rally?
-
There is no "War on terror"!
There never has been. Its just a slogan the Bushies have used to intimidate their opponents and greatly overreach their powers. (Tyrants they used to call them).
The only real, legit sensible and just objective since 9/11 has been bringing Osama Bin laden and his henchmen to justice. The one thing Bush and his henchmen have been sure to avoid. Without their boogieman they can't have their fake war.
The rest is just a waste of lives and treasure pursuing a lie invented by the Bush/Cheney hanta.
There is no reason to be in Iraq, there never has been. There is only one reason to be in Afghanistan... bringing Bin laden to justice.
It takes two to tango and with Bush and his right wing henchmen out of power (and hopefully in jail) the fake Islamic/Christian "they hate us because of our freedom" lie will be rejected with the ridicule it deserves.
Obama is absolutely correct to state that we will go after Bin laden when the opportunity presents itself. Even after eight years of corruption, distraction and incompetence from Bush Bin laden is still free and this nightmare cannot end until he is dealt with.
-
Talking tough because he thinks he has to
I'm guessing that this is more "talking tough" in the face of McCain camp criticism that Obama knows nothing and has offered no opinions on the war. What Obama has said on this front of late seems to be far more in the posturing category than any sort of coherent set of actionable plans.
I like the fact that Obama is emphasizing the importance of the Greater-Afghanistan situation while de-emphasizing the alleged imminent danger posed by Iran - unlike his opponent Mr. McCain.
We have plenty of time for Obama to bring together the right people to puzzle through intelligent, coherent strategies for the military aspects of our foreign policy. Since neither Obama or McCain are in control of the military at the moment, what matters most is that they indicate that they are aware of the problems at hand and that they are not simply letting them fall by the wayside.
-
Only Ralph Nader has it right
Almost four years ago Ralph Nader described correctly this country's way out of its Middle East quagmire: the exit! The old Vietnam War slogan applies: "When a woman is being raped, she does not want negotiation or pacification; she wants withdrawal!"
Withdrawal of our military forces from a theater they never should have invaded in the first place is the only answer. Our military presence does not defeat terrorism; we only encourage its recruitment.
If we had listened then to Mr Nader, we would not be the weakened country that we are today, overburdened by debts and overstretched militarily. We should be in far better condition to protect ourselves from international threats and far more influential all over the world.
Now, we are entering an election in which, again, the major parties offer us only the lesser of two poor choices. By failing to give real support to the only candidate who has not had to flip-flop on his positions on any issue, we present no challenge to Mr Obama. He can serve the corporate and military masters of our policies without looking over his shoulder. That is what he is doing by continuing the military policy in the Middle East, flipping on FISA, supporting nuclear power, ethanol from corn and insurance based health-care. With each presidential election, our country grows weaker, more crisis prone and our people find their way of life deteriorating.
The choice between McCain and Obama does not offer any way out of our problems, internationally nor domestically. We are in for another four years of worsening conditions, I greatly fear.
-
I think adding troops and "emphasis" on Afghanistan could be the equivalent of kicking a hornets nest ...
Afghanistan has been allowed to be something of "sleepy backwater" (interspersed with tragedies) while NATO has been "nation building"
We could easily be handing Al-Qaeda just what their waning "movement" needs to reclaim "relevance" ... If we put "finding Bin Laden" ahead of "nation building," the Taliban and the Afghan people become just incidental, collateral damage.... oh, and then there is the sovereign nation of Pakistan which is touchy about that sovereignty ... and their neighbor Iran ...
Gosh, won't that be a barnburner!?!
Stupid is as stupid does.