Feingold: Why Surge Where Al Qaeda Isn't?

[girl_interrupted]

"One of the fiercest critics of the proposed surge of U.S. forces in Afghanistan warned on Sunday that the policy would distract America from the pursuit of global al Qaeda networks."

"During an appearance on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) demanded that one question be answered when considering the implementation of the president's surge policy: Why send troops where al Qaeda isn't?"

"Pakistan, in the border region near Afghanistan, is perhaps the epicenter , although al Qaida is operating all over the world, in Yemen, in Somalia, in northern Africa, affiliates in Southeast Asia. Why would we build up 100,000 or more troops in parts of Afghanistan included that are not even near the border? You know, this buildup is in Helmand Province. That's not next door to Waziristan. So I'm wondering, what exactly is this strategy, given the fact that we have seen that there is a minimal presence of Al Qaida in Afghanistan, but a significant presence in Pakistan? It just defies common sense that a huge boots on the ground presence in a place where these people are not is the right strategy. It doesn't make any sense to me."


"The remarks by Feingold echoed earlier skepticism of an extended U.S. surge in Afghanistan offered by Vice President Joseph Biden, weeks before the policy was announced." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/06/feingold-why-surge-where_n_381729.html

[sandnsea]

1. Maybe we should invade Pakistan

:crazy:

Sometimes I wonder about Feingold.

[girl_interrupted]

3. I think it's a question that should be answered, even Biden agreed

Something just isn't right here. We are told that we are escalating in Afghanistan because that's where Al Qaeda is..yet that's not exactly true. There are very few in Afghanistan and so many more in other countries.

But if you want to get even more confused...figure this one out...In his speech Obama said we were attacked by Afghanistan. That's not true either. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, not one Afghani was a hijacker. Bin Laden was a Saudi Citizen, most of his family is in Saudi.

And if you think Saudi has no imput as to what is going on in Afghanistan & Pakistan you're dreaming.

Nothing makes sense out of any of this.


So yeah, I'm glad somebody isn't afraid to ask some questions.

[Sherman A1]

5. Precisely

It is a question that needs to be answered. It may have been in one or more of the briefings and meetings held for the President and the details may need to be kept quiet, yet it is a question worth asking.

[Lord Helmet]

6. FFS -- Obama did NOT say we were attacked on 9/11 by Afghanistan.

SPEECH TRANSCRIPT

-- snip

To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda - a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban - a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them - an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 - the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network, and to protect our common security.

-- snip

[DCBob]

16. The anti-Obama left is beginning to act like the anti-Obama right..

Lie and exaggerate to score political points. Pathetic.

[Lord Helmet]

52. I agree. The disingenuous parsing of words to misrepresent the facts is indeed pathetic.

[girl_interrupted]

25. yeah, he did...read further down on the transcript you posted

“”it is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted.”

[Lord Helmet]

46. Wrong again. He said the AL QAEDA attack on the U.S. was planned in the Afpak region ---->

-- snip

So no - I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

-- snip


He NEVER said Afghanistan attacked the U.S. Your insistence that he did in spite of irrefutable evidence to the contrary reveals you to be disingenuous and not to be taken seriously.

[girl_interrupted]

56. Lord..you have trouble with comprehension don't you?

Lets start right at the very beginning of President Obama's speech:

'To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers."


"As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere."

What country is he talking about? Sweden? Who was in control of the Afghanistan govt at the time of the 9/11 attacks?.... the taliban...and what group did they belong to? Al qaeda. And what country did we invade following the 9/11 attacks? Afghanistan.


Afghanistan, Afghanistan, Afghanistan......you get it now? Pakistan was our ally in 2001...Afghanistan was our enemy and we invaded them. And we invaded them....why? Because the Taliban was in control of the government, it was the base of operations of Al Qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers and that is precisly what Obama said.

Pakistan is mentioned only as a sidebar, in that some Al Qaeda escaped from Afghanistan and went into Pakistan "Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border." He is now talking about the Pakistan borders as the safe haven, the taliban escaped to from......Afghanistan. "This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak." The "epicenter" is still Afghanistan...Pakistan is only mentioned as the area whose borders, Afghani Taliban have escaped to. Obama has no plans to invade Pakistan, however he is escalating in Afghanistan...which is the epicenter and the orginial site where the 9/11 attacks orginated from.




NO WHERE DOES HE EVER MENTION PAKISTAN AS THE BASE FOR THE 9/11 ATTACKS, BUT HE DOES SAY THAT ABOUT AFGHANISTAN.


Go back and read his speech.

Please don't ever confuse me with anyone that cares what you think....because seriously...I could give a damn. As for being disingenous, I have watched two loons post on this board about attacks happening in NY if we don't back the escalation in Afghanistan and an imaginary, anonymous "soldier" sending emails how we are "going to win this one".

I don't intend to deceive...I just pay attention when some gives a speech...maybe you should do the same.

[Lord Helmet]

61. You are conflating geography with the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.

Your assertion that Pres Obama said Afghanistan attacked the U.S. implies that the sovereign nation of Afghanistan attacked America, and that clearly is false. He stated very clearly that al Qaeda attacked America and that al Qaeda currently resides in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. The authorization for force was against al Qaeda and any country affording them safe harbor. You are conflating geography with the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks and misrepresenting what Pres Obama said. Purposeful or not, it's still bullshit and deserves to be called out.

[girl_interrupted]

62. And what was the name of the country, that Obama said did that?

Afghanistan.

once again, I suggest reading his speech from the beginning..it's right there before your eyes.

And...it wasn't any other country that we invaded immediately following 9/11, but the country who harbored Al Qaeda whose base, according to Obama, was responsible for planning the 9/11 attacks.... in Afghanistan.

That's what he said, it's right there in the 1st paragraph of his speech

Read his speech, he doesn't say the 9/11 attacks were planned anywhere but Afghanistan.

"That's the reason we went to war in Afghanistan"

Not my words...his.


The "epicenter" was and has been in Afghanistan, that's why we are escalating there.

If anyone is confused buddy...it's you. Nice try at the spin, but it doesn't work.

Call it what you want...I really don't care.

You don't agree? Take it up with Obama.

I didn't write his speech, he did. And I am quoting his words.

[Lord Helmet]

63. You claimed Pres Obama said Afghanistan attacked America & that's horseshit.

Congress declared force be used against al Qaeda, not the Taliban who are an entirely different entity (which you also conflate here). And now al Queda resides in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, the geographic location of the "epicenter" of which Obama spoke.

You said here "In his speech Obama said we were attacked by Afghanistan."

I recall you insisting Gillibrand has always been pro-gay marriage and you refused to back down even with irrefutable proof in your face that she was most definitely not. And so I can only conclude that you are either (a) an idiot or (b) incapable of admitting you are wrong.

Obama NEVER said Afghanistan attacked America. He said al Qaeda attacked America, not Afghanistan or the Taliban and not Pakistan. Clear as can be.

I'm done kicking your thread.

[girl_interrupted]

65. You are too dense to believe! LOL!

You looked like an ass in the Gillibrand thread too. LOL!~ Insisting she was "too" republican & wasn't for gay marriage...When the HRC endorsed her twice for office as a congresswoman and a senator.

You looked stupid then and you look stupid now.

Yeah Obama said it...too bad you can't get that straight either.

Aww you won't kick my thread...do you really think I care? ROFL!

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

Now do us both a favor and don't go away mad...just go away.

PS. Read a transcript before you link it, it might save you the embarrassment, which you couldn't avoid on the Gillibrand link, either

Bye!

[Lord Helmet]

66. You have proved yourself to be just another purveyor of horseshit here at DU.

Here's the Gillibrand thread I referenced. You are erroneously attributing comments in the links posted to me. I did say she was at one time (pre-Senate) a conservative Blue Dog in the House and was not always for gay marriage. That's a fact. It is you that looked like an ass with your contortions refusing to acknowledge the inconvenient facts about Ms. Gillibrand's actual history.

This is another example and proof-positive that you wouldn't know a fact if it hit you upside the head. Talking to you is like trying to nail jello to the wall with your nonstop moving of goalposts.

You repeatedly misrepresent the facts by misquoting people. It doesn't matter to me anymore whether it's a misunderstanding on your part or if you purposely set out to deceive. What matters is that you have proved yourself to be entirely full of shit, disingenuous to boot, and as I said above just another purveyor of horseshit here at DU.

[sandnsea]

9. Al Qaeda is in Pakistan

The border region must be secured because Al Qaeda can go back and forth between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan must help in the fight, which they've finally realized since they've become the target of terrorist attacks themselves.

If you're going to misrepresent what the man said, then it's pretty easy to concoct an argument against him about Afghanistan or anything else.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

42. Edited/removed due to correction

[mkultra]

14. Obama stated that the strategy was to increase support to pakistan

so that they could be begin fighting these groups. Its a dual move.

[LooseWilly]

24. I don't think that Obama said that Afghanistan attacked the US. But I do remember him saying this:

"In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror." (culled from the transcript link downthread: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/01/the_way_forward_in_afghanistan_and_pakistan_99355.html)

I can't help noticing that it meantions extremists "sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan" being apprehended... and while some may see it as a sign that efforts need to be redoubled (and troops escalated)- I can't help but see it as an indication that bases/safehavens in Afghanistan aren't necessary to train and send extremists to the US. If there are no al Qa'eda bases in Afghanistan, they set them up in the (Waziristan?) border regions. If we take Waziristan? Will they just set up bases in Pakistan next? In Somalia? In Yemen? In Southeast Asian nations?

How much global real estate are we, as a country, willing to try to occupy militarily in order to "protect ourselves" from a terrorist threat such as al Qa'eda?

And, if our law enforcement agencies "apprehended extremists within our borders"... this time, might it not make more sense to better fund our law enforcement agencies, rather than send 30k more boots (well, 60k more boots, as presumeably the 30k soldiers will want two boots each) off to Afghanistan, so as to protect the nation not only from threats originating from Afghanistan, but also those "sent" from Waziristan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, etc. ?

I mean...

Am I the only one?

[girl_interrupted]

26. yeah he did

“”it is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted.”

[LooseWilly]

29. Ahh... now we come to a technicality. Technically, we're both right.

I don't think that that sentence was meant to say that the government of Afghanistan (the Taliban) attacked the US.

Of course, between the assertion that the attacks originated in Afghanistan, and the assertion that by not extraditing bin Laden (despite the fact that the US wouldn't present any evidence, which Obama conveniently neglected to mention) the Taliban was essentially "indicted" as a "de facto aggressor" in Obama's speech.

So... yeah, the policy treats the Taliban as having been an attacker on 9/11, so your assertion is "de facto" valid. But, technically, is not what was said.

[girl_interrupted]

36. Not sure there is a technicality here

I do see your point, but I think that's exactly what Obama wanted it to mean, in order to justify us stepping it up in Afghanistan. "It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11" And "Here" is Afghanistan. "It is from here that new attacks are being plotted.” Again "Here" is Afghanistan. He certainly wasn't talking about Brooklyn, he made that quite clear. The Taliban was in control of the government when the 9/11 attacks took place. So he is holding Afghanistan responsible, defacto or otherwise. Once again...we are taking the fight to "them". Trouble is we are also taking it to Afghani civilians, but no one seems to want to talk about that either.

Now if you really want to get technical...the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, not one Afghani. But neither Bush nor Obama, if you'll pardon the expression, want to touch the Saudi involvement in 9/11 with a 10 foot pole. As far as I'm concerned Saudi played a big part in it and still does. But we need their oil, so you can't bite the hand that feeds you.

I agree with every other point you made in both of your posts. You have a lot of very interesting insight into what's going on. The Taliban isn't just in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but in many other places as well, like Yemen. And they are in much larger numbers there too.

Anyways enjoyed your posts, food for thought. Thanks!

[LooseWilly]

48. I think we're on the same page.

I'm just, for some reason, hung up on the pedantic point that he isn't (technically) saying that Afghanistan attacked. I think you're right though, that the speech was crafted to essentially "grease the slide" of popular thought (where the hell did that image come from?) into believing exactly what you're saying: that Afghanistan needs to be fought because that's where the 9/11 attacks occurred.

Give me a minute to let go of the pedantry-
:freak:

Ok... now you're right...

[girl_interrupted]

60. LOL! You and I are definitely on the same page!

You know, I went back and reread his speech...and he started with this:

'To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers."


"As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere."

I don't know it's almost like saying...we didn't blame the Japanese people for Pearl Harbor, but we still went to war with them & bombed the hell out of them anyways, because of who was in control of their government at the time.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, I suppose. I'm still wondering why we don't eradicate the poppy fields, we know the taliban makes money off them to fund more terrorism. Why do we allow them to grow them? Is it because Karzai brother is heavily involved in the drug trade? Opium is turned into heroin. And coincidently...The United States is seeing a resurgence of young people becoming addicted to it.

Sometimes...I think we are just screwed.

[Garam_Masala]

32. No need to actually "invade" Pakistan,,,,this explains why--->

We can't send these drones into Pakistan's border region from USA or
our bases in Germany or even Iraq.....

Just too far away for these short range drones which are deadly from short range
...such as from Afghanistan near the Pakistan border!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091208/wl_nm/us_pakistan_missile

Is it becoming clear why troops will be sent to reinforce and defend bases in
Afghanistan?

[LooseWilly]

35. Ahh, much becomes clear.

The reasons contained in the speech seem like hollow bullshit, because they are hollow bullshit. The real reason is reinforcing bases from which the CIA, Covert DIA, and Blackwater black ops and drone raids will be launched across the border into Pakistan to press a secret/covert war...

The question now is: is this strategy liable to kill more al Qa'eda targets in Pakistan, than it generates enthusiasm for new recruits? Not to mention the corollary: is the bad PR (it may be a "secret" amongst those that listen to Obama speeches, but I'd imagine the Pakistanis have deduced the origin of the bombs dropping from the sky) liable to do more to destabilize the Pakistani government's hold on stability, and thus create a greater imminent danger strategically, than al Qa'eda represents if the covert war is not pressed?

Too bad citizens are not rated as worthy of having the information to make an informed decision in a representative democracy...

[Garam_Masala]

37. With all the oil money flowing into madrassa's

from rich guys in Saudi Arabia, UAE etc, there is no shortage of
recruits for Al Qaeda.

But it has to help to kill the leadership since that de-stabilizes
the planning and execution of serious terror attacks ala 911.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

45. There's a never-ending supply of leadership eager to step in.

Kill!

Is Corporate Media all over Al-Shabaab yet?

[LooseWilly]

47. Touche...

;)

[Garam_Masala]

67. It has worked so far

no 2nd 911....yet!

[Hippo_Tron]

55. I don't think he's suggesting that

I think he's suggesting that this isn't really about Al Qaeda.

[FrenchieCat]

2. In order to exit?

"in Afghanistan, our exit strategy must be built around four factors: attempting to
reduce the level of violence by seeking a political amelioration of the conflict. Greater assistance to the government of Pakistan in dealing with the AI Qaeda and Taliban remaining in Pakistan, economic development in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and developing a more capable security structure for the Afghans." - General Wesley Clark
http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/OI111709/Clark_Testimony111709.pdf

[CrunchMaster]

4. Maybe if Feingold would pull his head out of his ass he could see what's really going on

"Feingold: Why Surge Where Al Qaeda Isn't?"

Because Mr. Feingold, Pakistan is a nuclear armed terrorist safe haven country that has been exporting terrorist patsies around the world for going on 30 years making lots of people in the business of making war very very rich... frackin' idiot.

[Lefta Dissenter]

8. ummmmm,

There is no longer a significant Al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan. They left as we botched our attempts to "get Bin Laden."
The strongest Al Qaeda presence is in Pakistan

As far as I know, Feingold has not said that we should invade Pakistan. Of all people, Feingold understands the differences between the countries of the middle east - their governments, and their likely responses to an invasion from the United States. He just said that "that's where the most significant problem is, so why are we increasing our presence in Afghanistan?"

It's a logical question.

[VMI Dem]

10. Ah, more Bush Doctrine approval from the pro-war wing of the party?

LOL

[avaistheone1]

21. The Obama policy is a head in ass policy.

Violence always increases when we send troops into the Middle East.

Let Obama learn the hard way. He is above the lessons of history.

[girl_interrupted]

38. Feingold sure pulled his head out of his a***not voting for the Patriotic Act

The only one not to do so. And while there were a lot of democrats complaining about bush, but doing nothing, it was Feingold's resolution that tried to have bush censured.

Odd but we have and continue to send millions to Pakistan, despite the fact they are a "terrorist" haven or that AQ Khan who passed nuclear secrets to Iran, got "punished" with house arrest. If Obama is looking to wipe out the terrorists/taliban in Pakistan, I wish him luck. Pakistani taliban is much larger than the one in Afghanistan, and occupy geographically larger areas. Some of those areas can swallow up a brigade whole. It would take more than the 30,000 troops he wants to send and there is no way we could be out of their by 2011.

[ShortnFiery]

51. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that our "illustrious" Congress has declared WAR on Pakistan?

Gee, that's a new development - otherwise sending troops there would be against international law. :crazy:

[snot]

7. Exactly.

[BeyondGeography]

11. Um, Russ, they're only in Pakistan because we're in Afghanistan

:dunce:

[Cha]

20. But, his disingenuousness appeals to

a lot of people who pretend to know what's going on.

How did that whole "czar" investigation work out for him?

[LooseWilly]

27. Well, since we can't go into Pakistan, why not leave Afghanistan, so they'll go back there...

then we can invade all over again, and this time make sure to secure the Pakistan border first so they can't cross it to get away.

I think a withdrawal for say, 3 years, should allow the country to pay off enough debts so we can borrow the money for a new war once they've "fallen into our trap"...

Or is that too "out of the box" thinking for war strategy, for those who like a good, old fashioned, quagmire-style war?

[girl_interrupted]

39. LOL!

Reminds me of the game of "Hide and Seek" Maybe we can borrow the money from Afganistan....they are making a fortune on those poppy fields! And gee...doesn't that help to finance the Taliban? Why yes, yes it does. I always wonder why we never destroyed those fields.

I like the way you think! LOL!

[mkultra]

12. i have a hard time believing that AQ only has 400 people

To believe this assertion, then the reduction from 4000 to 400 would have been heralded by Bush from the mountain tops.

[avaistheone1]

22. Petraus and McChrsytal say there are 0 to 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

[mkultra]

41. what they actually said was

that AQ was down to around 400 with only about 100 currently operating in Afghanistan with the rest in Pakistan. before the Iraqi war, AQ was estimated at 4000.

[dflprincess]

54. And as Jon Stewart said to Dan Rather last night

"There's probably 100 Al Qaeda in Queens!"

[Sebastian Doyle]

43. Al Qaeda doesn't exist

At least not the "innernashinnal terraist army" that Chimpy told us about.

(see the signature)

[ClarkUSA]

13. Feingold is either grandstanding or ignorant of the facts. Here's why (quotes w/sourced links -->)

'http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=33800&mesg_id=33833">Gen. Petraus "says affiliated organizations still have "enclaves and sanctuaries" in the country'

"Al Qaeda may be diminished, but it still poses a threat, he said.... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125469118585462615.html">Al Qaeda also remains allied with and protected by the Taliban... Retired Gen. James Jones, the president's National Security Adviser, acknowledged on CNN Sunday that the links between the two groups had become a "central issue" in the White House discussion... Bruce Hoffman, a Georgetown University professor who has written extensively on al Qaeda....believes that... if the U.S. pulls out, al Qaeda will return.

Though there is emerging international consensus among counterterrorism officials that al Qaeda isn't the foe it used to be, U.S., Afghan and Pakistani officials caution that it doesn't mean the fight in Afghanistan or Pakistan is tilting America's way. "They're not defeated. They're not dismantled, but they are being disrupted," said a senior U.S. intelligence official in Washington.

Mr. Obama himself has argued that al Qaeda could strengthen if the U.S. eases up on the Taliban. "If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting," he said at a speech in Phoenix at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in August, before the current strategy debate heated up. "This is fundamental to the defense of our people."

For years, the fortunes of al Qaeda and the Taliban moved in tandem. The Taliban hosted al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and Mr. bin Laden's network launched its 2001 attacks from there. After the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban continued to provide haven after retreating to the tribal areas of Pakistan, while al Qaeda trained Taliban fighters.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK (RET), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER:... It was a strong speech, Larry. I think he laid out an important case.

I agree with a lot of the sentiments that Michael Moore expressed. I do think in this case, the president limited the objectives. He's not talking about nation-building. He's not talking about building a democracy.

I think he pointed right at the objective, go after Al Qaeda. He didn't talk about Pakistan, but Pakistan is all over this speech. And the simple truth is that, as he said, you can't get at Al Qaeda in Pakistan without doing more in Afghanistan.

So I think that he's going to put a lot of pressure on the Pakistanis and give them a lot of help and expect them to do a lot more directly against Al Qaeda while the U.S. forces in Afghanistan also work against Al Qaeda and work for a very minimalist objective with the idea of getting ourselves out of there in a responsible way pretty quickly...

CLARK: I think victory here is we go after Al Qaeda, particularly in Pakistan. We do it with the leadership of the Pakistanis, we give them the support to do it, we build a strong relationship with Pakistan, and we leave behind in Afghanistan some kind of minimally stable government.

If we have to go back in there at some later time, if we have to leave a residual force, if we have to leave some special forces and intelligence collectors there, we might have to do that.

But the point is the objectives in Afghanistan are pretty minimal. What we really want to do is go after Al Qaeda. And that's a war that there won't be a victory parade. Mark's exactly right on that. But we'll know when we're winning. We've already done a pretty good job against Al Qaeda. We just need to finish the job a little bit more in Pakistan, and we can't do that if we don't hang on in Afghanistan.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/01/lkl.01.html

... those officials pitted on the front line against the Taliban insurgents, said a rapid surge of 30,000 troops this winter was desperately needed, since Afghan forces could not fight off the current insurgency on their own.

“It’s a very good idea,” said a senior security official who has been in the forefront of tracking Al Qaeda and Taliban since 2001. The United States had very good human intelligence on Taliban on both sides of the border in Afghanistan and Pakistan but they did not have enough good fighters in the Afghan army and police, he said.

“They need the Americans,” he said. A surge of extra forces could undercut the insurgency in six months since many of the Taliban were ready to negotiate and could be persuaded to swap sides with a concerted effort, he said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=34387&mesg_id=34387

[Cha]

18. How about both? nt

[Moochy]

23. Sis boom Copy Paste! goooooo war!

Two generals, the president and an anonymous a senior security official can't be wrong, CHARGE!

[Cha]

49. The Subterfuge Gang has their

knickers knotted over bringing facts onto the board. They actually think they're being clever by calling it "copy and paste". As if that's going to stop the truth from hurting.

[Vattel]

15. Feingold is asking a good question.

But I think he knows the answer. In Afghanistan we are not merely trying to pick off the few members of Al Qaeda that remain there. We are interested in counter-insurgency aimed at weakening the Taliban. What does that have to do with Al Qaeda? Presumably the worry is that the success of the Taliban in Afghanistan or Pakistan would provide Al Qaeda with powerful allies in the region. Is this a reasonable worry that justifies the surge? My educated guess is that it's a reasonable worry, but doesn't justify the surge.

[Phx_Dem]

17. Who'd a thunk Feingold could sound so utterly clueless.

He should just be honest and admit he opposes all wars, regardless of where Al Qaida is.

[girl_interrupted]

30. I don't think either Feingold or Biden are clueless

And I think they express the same concern as to whether or not escalation in Afghanistan is the right way to go about it. And there are many people who also feel the same way. Never hurts to question anything, especially military strategy before you commit more boots on the ground.

[waterscalm]

40. Demeaning a good Democrat such as a Feingold is wrong.

[branders seine]

19. Iraq was the wrong war in the wrong place.

Afghanistan is now the wrong war at the wrong time.

[PBS Poll-435]

28. Feingold is so not getting a Merry Christmas card this year from me

Not with all the pointless grandstanding.

[ShortnFiery]

50. I guess Russ will survive because 1) he's Jewish; and 2) he's not a fan of yours either.

:shrug:

[PBS Poll-435]

53. ...

Did you hear a "wooshing" sound?



:rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

69. Nice try but no cover, Sport.

;)

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Techn0Girl]

33. I am sorry but this is not appropriate. You need to see a good psychiatrist and start on medication

I'm being serious.
You are not being appropriate.

[PBS Poll-435]

34. Who are you to judge? You are not a mod!!!

This DUer has been a valuable member for more than 2 hours.

WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE?!?


Go back to your ivory towers and gumdrop lanes. Enjoy your Sequined Starbucks and your wonderful Wal-Marts.

[polichick]

44. Glad somebody on the Hill still asks logical questions...

But he won't get a logical answer because there isn't one. I wish the admin. would just come right out and say it's about corporate profits and the mic.

[Dinger]

57. Feingold, My Senator : )

:patriot:

[Honeycombe8]

58. I think to keep the Taliban from taking over the Afghan government again and giving

safe harbor to Al Qaeda, as it did in the past.

They are also doing spy work in nearby Pakistan, where the AQ are. Close proximity is helpful, it would seem to me.

[and-justice-for-all]

59. Al Qaeda does not exist...nt

[ecstatic]

64. If only she and her colleagues would put as much thought into the healthcare bill,

as they put into second guessing the President... we might actually have health care right now!

[PBS Poll-435]

68. I can say one thing for certain. There is no Al Qaeda in the meeting room of the "Gang of Ten."

:shrug:

[billyoc]

70. The light's better over here.