via Obama seeking options on troops levels in Afghanistan – washingtonpost.com
President Obama has asked the Pentagon’s top generals to provide him with more options for troop levels in Afghanistan, two U.S. officials said late Friday, with one adding that some of the alternatives would allow Obama to send fewer new troops than the roughly 40,000 requested by his top commander…
War in Afghanistan
…Before he can determine troop levels, his advisers have said, he must decide whether to embrace a strategy focused heavily on counterinsurgency, which would require additional forces to protect population centers, or one that makes counterterrorism the main focus of U.S. efforts in the country, which would rely on relatively fewer American troops.
The advisors are saying that Obama must embrace a strategy of either strong counterinsurgency with an escalation of troops, or just plain old counterterrorism strategy with fewer troops, or a combination of both ideas:
One option under review involves a blend of the two approaches, featuring an emphasis on counterterrorism in the north and some parts of western Afghanistan as well as an expanded counterinsurgency effort in the south and east, one of the officials said. Obama has also asked for a province-by-province review of the country to determine which areas can by managed effectively by local leaders.
But there is a third choice, better than war or more war. From Robert Dreyfuss at The Nation:
Accordingly, the first step for Washington must be to abandon the idea of a decades-long counterinsurgency, fire its advocates–including Gen. Stanley McChrystal and Gen. David Petraeus, architect of the Counterinsurgency Field Manual–and admit that the multiheaded insurgency in southern and eastern Afghanistan can’t be defeated by military means…
…Instead, the United States should prepare to channel a substantial flow of international development assistance and humanitarian aid to Afghanistan through a newly reconstructed, rebalanced Afghan government…
…In addition, President Obama should declare that the United States has achieved its principal objective in Afghanistan, namely, the near-total destruction of Al Qaeda as an organization.
Yea. That’s the ticket. It’s time to call the game and turn off the ball park lights and go home. We must reconsider the end game; is there a more attainable status quo than the pie-in-the sky vision of Afghanistan with no heroin poppies and enough peace and love flowing that it would make a hippie blush?
A more sensible view is needed. Stop the war and focus on the humanitarian crisis. They can do airlifts and other missions to get humanitarian aid to the refugees that we created in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We can accept an end game that looks like it does now with Al Qaeda virtually wiped out and also recognize that the Taliban insurgency will continue with or without the United States’ or NATO’s involvement.
____________________________________________________
NEW! Guest comments are welcome!
____________________________________________________
Follow me on Twitter!
Today’s GOP is Smaller than Ever, Screams to Remain Relevant
Re: Today’s GOP is both united and divided – washingtonpost.com, By Jon Cohen and Dan Balz, Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 30, 2009
My question is this, why do journalists and TV pundits talk about the Republican Party as if it were just as large and relevant as the Democratic Party? There is only one place in this entire article that mentions how small the GOP has become. It is in the middle of the second page (online) and surrounded by parentheses as if it were something injected as a side note or just for your information:
Oh by the way, 78% of voting Americans are NOT Republicans.
But the right-wing journalists insist that what they do or what they say is just as relevant as the majority opinion without any disclaimer about just how many of them there are. The news media cover the small, but loud, tea-bag protests as if they were just springing up everywhere as a natural occurrence automatically because of the crazy hyperbole that Obama is a socialist or that their grandma has to die. The reporters proudly over-estimate the numbers of the crowd and unapologetically talk about the insane posters and signs as if they had something legitimate to say. And if you are thinking that, well, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, then just think back to when there were massive marches and demonstrations to end the war in Iraq. That particular loudly squeaking wheel got no grease at all.
Now, the Washington Post interviews a few right-wing freaks in Colorado and suddenly their opinion is supposed to be some sort of new, awesome truth, when if fact, it is the minority opinion.
As a matter of comparison, did the interviewer ask her if she was aware that the cost of war in Iraq and Afghanistan this year would almost double the price of the health care bill for one year? No. Did he ask her if she was aware that we spend ten times the amount of the health care reform on the Defense Department every year? No. The interviewer let her words just hang out there as if they meant something. Did the interviewer ask if she was aware that a third of the stimulus bill was in the form of tax cuts for the middle class? Sadly, no.
What the right wing discomfort boils down to is that there is a black Democrat in the White House. There is nothing more substantial being said or inferred. It is pure Bracknophobia, nothing else.
In the immortal words of The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart, “you lost, it’s supposed to taste like a sh*t taco”. (This quote is at the 3:31 mark.)
Full Episodes
More and more conservatives are leaning toward the hard right-wing fringe, being upset about Obama, and they are floundering, desperately, to be heard. Of Republicans:
Let them trend to the right. This is the best thing to ever happen to the Democratic Party, well, that and Sarah Palin.
Caricature of Sarah Palin