Do you support or oppose the war in Afghanistan?

[rug]

Poll question: Do you support or oppose the war in Afghanistan?

[xchrom]

1. oppose -- though i didn't start out that way.

on edit -- i attended marches and helped with opposition rallies to both war efforts.

it was a thing i struggled with -- admitted to here at du.

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. Yer under arrest, buster.

>>>>>>it was a thing i struggled with -- admitted to here at du.>>>>>

[xchrom]

8. oooh! is there a security pat down involved? nt

[Smarmie Doofus]

14. Oh. So yer a **WIIIISE** guy, eh?!? Why-i-oughta..........

Happy New Year!

[xchrom]

26. And a wonderful new year to you too! Nt

[latebloomer]

2. Have completely opposed it from the start

and am very much opposed to Obama's escalation.

Total waste of blood and treasure which we could be using in so many other constructive ways.

And makes us more vulnerable, not less, to terrorism. People hate us because we can't mind our own business. And because we kill and plunder all over the world.

[Loudmxr]

3. There is no reason any more for US to be there.

OK except for the OIL pipeline and the multi national interests and the Poppies Poppies Poppies Poppies Poppies Poppies Poppies

[stray cat]

5. Simplistic but good for a bumper sticker

[rug]

6. I'll put that down as Support.

[vaberella]

7. Why is there not an "I don't know."?

I love how for some things are black and white.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. We, collectively, send men and women to die there.

So do you think 'I don't know' is good enough? Really? Life and death is a black and white thing, one is either living or dead, no returns. On or off.
But I guess for some that sort of thing is looked upon lightly. As long as it is others doing the dying.

[Telly Savalas]

12. There will be war there regardless of the presence of US troops.

So the question is whether the presence of US troops is making things better or worse. Given the fact that this isn't a simple question, "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. But I guess it's easy for you to look upon it lightly when it's other doing the dying.

[rug]

21. How hard is to have an opinon onn this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4678444

This was posted in LBN within 14 minutes of yours. There will likely be more reports within a half hour.

Seriously, after nine years of this, what more needs to be known?

[vaberella]

36. Don't assume that because I'm on the fence that I'm supportive of the war.

In general I am against war or violence, however you define it. However, in this situation there are legitimate reasons why I am reluctant to just leave and it's not to do with Al Qaueda...we fucked up the nation twice as much as AQ or the Taliban did on it's own. We helped killed many innocents. I figure we owe the nation something in trying to rectify what we've done. However maybe you're right. Let's leave it as it is because no matter what the Blowback will come and then we'll have to go to that war. As an individual and as a native Manhattanite I can tell you--- 9/11 didn't seem like a one off thing and if it happens again---and it comes from that area of the world, I'd like to snuff the bad guys.

This situation is in no way comparable to Vietnam, we were just wrong on this. We came at the end of WWI and WWII and maybe our push into WWII would be a better comparison. However... to me it's a sticky situation. I'm just not sure. I have several reasons why we should be there, but then my other side say fuck it and take our guys out.

[rug]

46. As another native Manhattanite (New York Hospital), I grew up less indecisive. .

[Dokkie]

93. how ever u look at it

the sooner we stop pumping depleted uranium rounds into the country, the better and believe me, theres no way the tablican can achieve the level of death and destruction we r inflicting on that poor country.

[rug]

11. Yea, yea. 2014, terror, al Qaeda, 2011, breeding ground, Taliban, 2012, caves, security, etc., etc.

It's too complicated for a simple citizen to decide if he or she supports this war.

In any event, whether you "know" or not, it's taking place this minute, this day. People alive as you read this will not be at the end of the day due to this war. It's more important than it is complicated.

It's a straightforward question. You can either dissemble or ignore it. Or save your angst and just click "Support".

[tekisui]

37. You don't know if you support it?

That's odd.

[Union Scribe]

41. If you can't make up your mind about one issue in nine years

then life must be difficult for you.

[young but wise]

10. I oppose the war.

[slackmaster]

13. Oppose.

Let them kill each other off, if that's what they really want to do.

[elocs]

15. Wow! What a shocking surprise to such a question here at DU. n/t

[rug]

18. Yes, but this is GDP.

[BklnDem75]

24. and that's different because...?

Only a select few go to GDP?

[rug]

25. Assuming this is not an obtuse question,

GDP, of all the big forums, has been most defensive of the President's policies. The President has embraced the policy of escalation in Afghanistan. Ergo, the post.

Need I wonder what your vote is?

[BklnDem75]

28. So those that oppose war oppose Obama?

I really don't see where you're trying to go with this.

[rug]

29. No, the opposite is more generally true.

[Blue-Jay]

39. You, sir, are a god among men.

[ClarkUSA]

43. Actually, those who opposed the war in Iraq supported Obama in 2008.

He was the one who spoke out against IWR in 2002, right before the vote and kept his promise to end the war in Iraq.

President Obama will never ever be good enough for his most constant critics. For example, PUMAs like Jane Hamsher and her fans who supported a pro-war DLC candidate bitterly oppose anything-Obama but they are purposefully attacking from the left for shit-stirring plausible deniability.

The goalpost is always moving, even after such legislative milestones such as DADT repeal and promises kept such as the end of the war in Iraq.

For whiners, any excuse will do.

[rug]

45. The question is about Afghanistan today, not the primary in 2008.

[ClarkUSA]

47. The two are related issues, as President Obama made clear in 2008.

Some people would rather ignore the fact that nothing he is doing now in Afghanistan should be a surprise, given he said Bush dropped the ball in Afghanistan when he went to war in Iraq and that he intended to finish the job in Afghanistan.

But we know what the OP is really all about, don't we? It really has nothing to do with Afghanistan:

However, seeing as how this is most likely a not-so-thinly-veiled way to call people who don't hate Obama unthinking sheep, I will simply say that I voted for him knowing full well that he would escalate in Afghanistan--and that I disagreed heartily with that decision.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=581746&mesg_id=582062

I see you.

[rug]

48. You are unsurprised 30,000 troops and thousands of drones have been injected into Afghanistan?

You are unsurprised drones are routinely flying into Afghanistan?

You see this as a fulfilled campaign promise?

Make sure you post when the job is finished, whenever that is.

[ClarkUSA]

52. Correct. The drones were Biden's idea while Hillary wanted 80,000 troops for 10+ years.

Considering the alternatives, I'm very thankful we didn't end up with either of his two main opponents as POTUS and that he ignored DLC Hillary's Afghanistan war advice, which parroted Gen. McChrystal's neo-con recommendations.

[rug]

54. You do realize this is December 31, 2010, not March 31, 2008?

And that after the war in Iraq "ended", 50,000 troops remain, with no removal date in sight?

And do you support the widespread deployment of drones because the Vice President proposed it or because the President ordered it?

Or do I completely misread you and you in fact oppose this war, regardless of which President and which politician supports it?

[ClarkUSA]

57. You do realize that what Candidate Obama said in 2008 re: Af War is a promise he is keeping in 2010?

Is this your new issue with which to criticize 24/7, now that President Obama has succeeded in fulfilling his campaign promise to get DADT repealed? Supporters of his DADT repeal strategy sure have been vindicated, hmm?

Funny how you never seemed this outraged over the war in Afghanistan before now. But since I know the real reason behind all the bile, I find it all so predictable. What will you do when he ends the war in Afghanistan? Move the goalpost again?

[rug]

58. I realize what President Obama's position was one year ago.

One person standing in the way of expanded missile strikes: President Obama. Five administration officials tell NEWSWEEK that the president has sided with political and diplomatic advisers who argue that widening the scope of the drone attacks would be risky and unwise. Obama is concerned that firing missiles into urban areas like Quetta, where intelligence reports suggest that Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar and other high-level militants have sometimes taken shelter, would greatly increase the risk of civilian casualties. It would also draw protests from Pakistani politicians and military leaders, who have been largely quiet about the drone attacks as long as they've been confined to the country's out-of-sight border region.

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/12/12/the-drone-dilemma.html

And what he did today.

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) - A U.S. missile strike killed eight alleged militants in northwest Pakistan on Friday on the final day of a year that has seen a major escalation in drone attacks targeting insurgents flowing into neighboring Afghanistan, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20101231/D9KEUAOG0.html

I'm sure your view of drones has evolved in the past year as well.

There is a moral bankruptcy in using war as a political talking point.

[ClarkUSA]

59. So what? Conditions on the ground change and so does a CIC's strategic decisions.

However, I doubt those who are so morally bankrupt that they use war as a political talking point would ever admit that, much less understand it.

[rug]

61. So what?

Well, for one thing, we're no longer talking about campaign promises.

For another thing, the reversal of the policy is because the conditions on the ground have changed - for the worse.

Finally, the effects of the drone policy, which rightfully caused the President, initially, to resist it, remain as true today.

Will you abandon your support for this war only after the CIC realizes its damage?

[ClarkUSA]

63. Yawn.

Let's not pretend this is really about the Af war, considering you never seemed to care about it until DADT was repealed. Is this your new goalpost with which to criticize President Obama 24/7? What will you do when he ends the war in Afghanistan? Move the goalpost? :eyes:

Arkana hit the nail on the head about the reasons for this OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=581746&mesg_id=582081

So am I. Well, I'm done kicking this OP. I have a New Year's Party to go to at the local Democratic headquarters where members of my OFA group and others in the surrounding area are gathering. We're all going to toast the best president in our lifetime.

While I'm gone, have fun kicking your own thread, okay?

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[maryf]

66. me too...

pretty cold that night, not as cold as some folks though...

[rug]

68. No kidding!

You've got to pm me next time the Hudson Valley peace groups are planning something.

Small but spirited!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTgGatZFiq4

[maryf]

100. Hudson Valley and Capital District

are really active. Check out the united anti-war committee page too. http://www.nationalpeaceconference.org/Home_Page.html

[awoke_in_2003]

73. "is a promise he is keeping in 2010?"

well, at least he kept one of his promises :sarcasm:

[rhett o rick]

83. That's a bunch of crap. Get out as soon as possible. nm

[rhett o rick]

50. Do I understand from your rhetoric that you support the war in Afghanistan?

You think killing innocent Afghan's including children is worth it? Worth what?

[ClarkUSA]

56. That strawman fallacy is as faulty as your rhett o rick.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[rhett o rick]

82. You didnt answer the question. DO YOU FAVOR THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN? nm

[rhett o rick]

51. Is the war in Iraq over? I missed it in the news. Did we win? nm

[ClarkUSA]

60. Sept. 1, 2010 headline: "Barack Obama ends the war in Iraq"

"US president delivers on key election promise and thanks troops for 'job well done' – but cautions against triumphalism"
Here's the news you allegedly "missed": http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/01/obama-formally-ends-iraq-war

[maryf]

67. Doublespeak? withdraw but stay?

since we "withdrew":

US warplanes bomb central Iraq
07 December, 2010 11:31:00 MRS/TG/HRF

US fighter jets have reportedly pounded a region in Iraq's central governorate of Babil months after Washington declared an end to combat operations in Iraq late August.


Iraqi security sources said that on Monday, US warplanes shelled a region lying north of the provincial capital of Hilla, Aswat al-Iraq news agency reported. “A number of US jets pounded this afternoon al-Buhayrat region, al-Askandariya district," said a security official, noting that Iraqi authorities had not been informed about the operation.

<snip>

The US involvement in a military operation comes despite the expiry of the mandate of US combat troops in war-torn Iraq at the end of August. Upon the expiry, Washington withdrew its troops from the Iraqi soil after seven years of military presence in the country, but left some 50,000 US troops for what it calls "training and advising" purposes.

The Monday airstrike is not the first time the US forces have engaged in a military operation in Iraq after the August expiry.
On September 6, US troops engaged in a gun battle in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, opening fire on suspected militants, who were believed to have entered an Iraqi military complex in the center of the capital city.
More than 12 people were killed and dozens more left injured during the attack.

Also in September, US and Iraqi forces launched a joint operation in Fallujah which resulted in the deaths of at least seven civilians.

http://www.military-world.net/Iraq/4692.html

[awoke_in_2003]

75. ah, poor Mary...

don't you know that 2+2=5 (except when the party needs it to equal 4)?

[awoke_in_2003]

74. yes, the 50 thousand troops we have there still...

are just there to promote peace.

[rhett o rick]

81. How about the 200,000 contractors paid for by the middle class of America. nm

[maryf]

97. The ministry of Peace, AKA Minipax in newspeak

is alive and well, as is the ministry of love, ministry of plenty, and, perhaps most vital, the ministry of truth...

[walldude]

89. The war is over? You may want to tell these guys:

12-08-2010 US Finch, David D. Private 1st Class

11-21-2010 US Luff Jr., David J. Sergeant

11-19-2010 US Gandy, Loleni W. Staff Sergeant

10-24-2010 US Jones Jr., David R. Private 1st Class

10-16-2010 US Reid, Dylan T. Private 1st Class

9-27-2010 US Whisenant, Marc C. Specialist

9-24-2010 US Carrillo Jr., John Specialist

9-24-2010 US Noonan, Gebrah P.

9-16-2010 US Burner III, John F. Sergeant 32

9-15-2010 US Hansen, James A. Senior Airman

9-07-2010 US Jenkins, Philip C. Sergeant 26

9-07-2010 US McClamrock, James F. Private 1st Class 22


Oh wait... They're dead. All in Iraq and all since the war "ended". I'm sure their families are very happy to know the war is over.

[Exilednight]

101. Obama was anti-Iraq, but he was, also, pro-war. Did he not run on the platform of expanding the

Afghan war?

There are arguments to be made on both sides as to whether or not invading Afghanistan was a good thing or a bad thing. I started out believing that it was good, but as the years have gone by I have yet to see what our clear cut objective is in regards to the non-existent "war on terror".

Taliban does not equal Al-Queda, but they were giving cover to Al-Queda.

The longer this goes on, the more history is pointing out that invading Afghanistan was a really dumb idea, and expanding the war was just as equally, if not more, stupid.

[mtnsnake]

16. Oppose. After 9 futile years of making things worse, it's time to get out of their faces.

We did enough damage over there to make our point and then some. Time to try something better, like diplomacy.

[GreenEyedLefty]

17. Supported at first, now oppose.

[FirstLight]

19. ...and i'm also one of those

who thinks that we should just 'cut & run' as the B*sh administration used to say...

get the hell OUTTA there...and fix our home issues, first
all the money, cost in lives and ruining other's culture is not worth it. it is a stupid holy war, and what happens over there really has no meaning or effect on my life...let them be, it is a quagmire and we need to leave NOW

[mtnsnake]

23. Wells said, FirstLight

You should do that as a thread sometime. :thumbsup:

[maryf]

98. 58% of the federal budget goes to the pentagon....

58%...27 or so percent of the federal budget goes to Iraq and Afghanistan alone....yet the rich aren't taxed...

[Atypical Liberal]

20. Oppose.

I oppose the entire Middle East involvement. I'm convinced that the entire exercise is an attempt to control access to the last drops of oil they are able to squeeze out.

If they had put the effort and money into developing alternatives, we could own the future intellectual property rights for new energy technologies for the next century.

Also, the only way we will be able to shrink the military, and its related industrial complex, is when they don't have any wars to fight. So long as there are active wars, they will always get money through Congress by hanging the "you don't want to NOT support our TROOPS, do you???" over their heads.

But if there are no wars to fight, then people start asking just what are we spending so much money on?

Stopping the wars is the first step in reigning in military spending.

[golfguru]

22. Afghan war is even more UNwinnable than Viet-Nam

Those people are devout Muslims and largely uneducated and tribal.
They are not ready for Iraq style democracy for at least 100 more years.
To make matters worse the area bordering Pakistan is extremely rugged
mountains. It is arguably the worst place to fight a war.

Finally so long as Al Qaeda has safe sanctuary in Pakistan, along with Taliban
they can mount guerrila attacks at will and flee back into Pakistan.

[awoke_in_2003]

31. "Iraq style democracy "...

Iraq is not ready for an "Iraq style democracy"

[golfguru]

69. Iraq style democracy

can be defined based on ACTUAL history so far.
There is a constitution.
There were elections.
There is an elected parliament.
The country is unified and has a functioning military and has control
over ENTIRE COUNTRY.

However stability of the government is yet to be proven.
If 10 years pass since the first election and the country is still
functioning as one unified country, Iraq has entered the democratic world.
However it has made a legitimate start as the first democracy in a middle-east
muslim country.

Afghanistan has no functioning military which can defend inside its borders
against insurgents. There is no constitution agreed on and voted on by all
citizens. I can not see Afghanistan stabilizing for many decades to come.

[awoke_in_2003]

72. Iraq style democracy..

can be defined as a puppet government jumping when we pull the strings.

"Afghanistan has no functioning military which can defend inside its borders"
And Afghanistan will NEVER have a functioning central government- something history teaches us, if people would fucking pay attention.

[golfguru]

78. I must laugh at your comment

since if we were really pulling the strings in Iraq, we would be paid
from their enormous oil revenues for every dollar we spent there.
Guess what? We can't collect zilch. Obama even said that during campaign
and I was optimistic, but nothing happened so far.

[awoke_in_2003]

88. and if you ever thought...

we were going to see oil revenues from Iraq I laugh at you. We were there to make sure that Shell and Exxon signed their leases with the Iraqi government, nothing more.

[golfguru]

94. I had no reason to distrust Obama during campaign

[Exilednight]

103. Uneducated and devout Muslims? You have no clue about the Afghan people or their

culture.

It's like any other nation. They have smart people, dumb people, Christians, Muslims and several other religions. Many, in the outer lying areas, coexist peacefully.

[mix]

27. Oppose. I do not trust our leaders or the MIC. nt

[thelordofhell]

30. God bless our troops

God damn our wars

[awoke_in_2003]

32. Oppose the war in afghanistan...

and the occupation of Iraq- yes, occupation. We have 50k people there with guns.

[PufPuf23]

33. Have always opposed.

Also oppose the increased US military in Horn of Africa and Latin America, building of huge bases and embassies, arms sales (such as $60 Billion to the Saudis, and support for Honduras coup; all post-GWB.

[Kaleva]

34. Supported in the beginning and still support.

[Hissyspit]

44. Have you served? Did you sign up to serve? Will you sign up to serve?

Is ten years of failure supportable? Who will be the last to die? When? How many civilian deaths are supportable?

Legitimate questions.

[Kaleva]

70. I've served and am too old to serve again.

"Is ten years of failure supportable?"

The Taliban aren't winning either.

"Who will be the last to die? When?"

Nobody wants to be the first to die either. Very few want to die at anytime during a war.

"How many civilian deaths are supportable?"

As few as possible. This isn't WWII where the deaths of 100s of thousands of civilians was supportable.

[Hissyspit]

79. "Are five and six tours acceptable?"

"Should the UN be taking over this occupation?"

More legitimate questions.

[Kaleva]

80. UN forces are peace keepers and not peace makers.

As for the frequency of tours, everyone in the military is a volunteer. The last draftee either left or retired from the military long ago as the draft ended in 1973. It should come as no surprise to anyone joining that they may have to deploy often. I deployed four times while I was in the Navy and that was during peacetime.

[Hissyspit]

84. This war has been a disgusting disaster from the beginning.

A war started by the George W. Bush administration. And continues to be a disgusting disaster.

You deployed four times during peacetime. Yes. Not the same as deploying four times into combat or a war theatre.

Everyone is a volunteer. Oh, well. There you go. That makes it o.k.

A YEAR AGO:

http://www.alternet.org/world/141478/there_is_no_reason_for_us_to_be_in_afghanistan_--_everyone_knows_it%2C_and_it_spells_defeat

There Is No Reason for Us to Be in Afghanistan -- Everyone Knows It, and It Spells Defeat

Truthdig / By Chris Hedges

The confusion of purpose in Afghanistan mirrors the confusion on the ground. We are embroiled in a civil war.
July 21, 2009 |

Al-Qaida could not care less what we do in Afghanistan. We can bomb Afghan villages, hunt the Taliban in Helmand province, build a 100,000-strong client Afghan army, stand by passively as Afghan warlords execute hundreds, maybe thousands, of Taliban prisoners, build huge, elaborate military bases and send drones to drop bombs on Pakistan. It will make no difference. The war will not halt the attacks of Islamic radicals. Terrorist and insurgent groups are not conventional forces. They do not play by the rules of warfare our commanders have drilled into them in war colleges and service academies. And these underground groups are protean, changing shape and color as they drift from one failed state to the next, plan a terrorist attack and then fade back into the shadows. We are fighting with the wrong tools. We are fighting the wrong people. We are on the wrong side of history. And we will be defeated in Afghanistan as we will be in Iraq.

The cost of the Afghanistan war is rising. Tens of thousands of Afghan civilians have been killed or wounded. July has been the deadliest month in the war for NATO combatants, with at least 50 troops, including 26 Americans, killed. Roadside bomb attacks on coalition forces are swelling the number of wounded and killed. In June, the tally of incidents involving roadside bombs, also called improvised explosive devices (IEDs), hit 736, a record for the fourth straight month; the number had risen from 361 in March to 407 in April and to 465 in May. The decision by President Barack Obama to send 21,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan has increased our presence to 57,000 American troops. The total is expected to rise to at least 68,000 by the end of 2009. It will only mean more death, expanded fighting and greater futility.

We have stumbled into a confusing mix of armed groups that include criminal gangs, drug traffickers, Pashtun and Tajik militias, kidnapping rings, death squads and mercenaries. We are embroiled in a civil war. The Pashtuns, who make up most of the Taliban and are the traditional rulers of Afghanistan, are battling the Tajiks and Uzbeks, who make up the Northern Alliance, which, with foreign help, won the civil war in 2001. The old Northern Alliance now dominates the corrupt and incompetent government. It is deeply hated. And it will fall with us.

We are losing the war in Afghanistan. When we invaded the country eight years ago the Taliban controlled about 75 percent of Afghanistan. Today its reach has crept back to about half the country. The Taliban runs the poppy trade, which brings in an annual income of about $300 million a year. It brazenly carries out attacks in Kabul, the capital, and foreigners, fearing kidnapping, rarely walk the streets of most Afghan cities. It is life-threatening to go into the countryside, where 80 percent of all Afghanis live, unless escorted by NATO troops. And intrepid reporters can interview Taliban officials in downtown coffee shops in Kabul. Osama bin Laden has, to the amusement of much of the rest of the world, become the Where's Waldo of the Middle East. Take away the bullets and the bombs and you have a Gilbert and Sullivan farce.

No one seems to be able to articulate why we are in Afghanistan. Is it to hunt down bin Laden and al-Qaida? Is it to consolidate progress? Have we declared war on the Taliban? Are we building democracy? Are we fighting terrorists there so we do not have to fight them here? Are we "liberating" the women of Afghanistan? The absurdity of the questions, used as thought-terminating cliches, exposes the absurdity of the war. The confusion of purpose mirrors the confusion on the ground. We don't know what we are doing.

MORE

SIX MONTHS AGO:

http://www.truth-out.org/losing-afghanistan61122

Losing in Afghanistan
Wednesday 07 July 2010
by: Marjorie Cohn, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

Last week, the House of Representatives voted 215-210 for $33 billion to fund Barack Obama's troop increase in Afghanistan. But there was considerable opposition to giving the president a blank check. One hundred sixty-two House members supported an amendment that would have tied the funding to a withdrawal timetable. One hundred members voted for another amendment that would have rejected the $33 billion for the 30,000 new troops already on their way to Afghanistan; that amendment would have required that the money be spent to redeploy our troops out of Afghanistan. Democrats voting for the second amendment included House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and nine Republicans. Both amendments failed to pass.

The new appropriation is in addition to the $130 billion Congress has already approved for Iraq and Afghanistan this year. And the 2010 Pentagon budget is $693 billion, more than all other discretionary spending programs combined.

Our economic crisis is directly tied to the cost of the war. We are in desperate need of money for education and health care. The $1 million per year it costs to maintain a single soldier in Afghanistan could pay for 20 green jobs.

Not only is the war bankrupting us, it has come at a tragic cost in lives. June was the deadliest month for US troops in Afghanistan. In addition to the 1,149 American soldiers killed in Afghanistan, untold numbers of Afghan civilians have died from the war - untold because the Defense Department refuses to maintain statistics of anyone except US personnel. After all, Donald Rumsfeld quipped in 2005, "death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war."

There are other "depressing" aspects of this war as well. As Gen. Stanley McChrystal reported just days before he got the ax, there is a "resilient and growing insurgency" with high levels of violence and corruption within the Karzai government. McChrystal's remarks were considered "off message" by the White House, which was also irked by the general's criticisms of Obama officials in a Rolling Stone article. McChrystal believes that you can't kill your way out of Afghanistan. "The Russians killed 1 million Afghans and that didn't work."

- snip -

The majority of Americans now oppose the war in Afghanistan. Fareed Zakaria had some harsh words for the war on his CNN show, saying, "the whole enterprise in Afghanistan feels disproportionate, a very expensive solution to what is turning out to be a small but real problem." Noting that CIA Director Leon Panetta admitted that the number of al-Qaeda left in Afghanistan may be 50 to 100, Zakaria asked, "why are we fighting a major war" there? "Last month alone there were more than 100 NATO troops killed in Afghanistan," he said. "That's more than one allied death for each living Al Qaeda member in the country in just one month." Citing estimates that the war will cost more than $100 billion in 2010 alone, Zakaria observed, "That's a billion dollars for every member of Al Qaeda thought to be living in Afghanistan in one year." He queried, "Why are we investing so much time, energy, and effort when Al Qaeda is so weak?" And Zakaria responded to the argument that we should continue fighting the Taliban because they are allied with al-Qaeda by saying, "this would be like fighting Italy in World War II after Hitler's regime had collapsed and Berlin was in flames just because Italy had been allied with Germany."

- snip -

Obama will likely persist with his failed war. He appears to be stumbling along the same path that Lyndon Johnson followed. Johnson lost his vision for a "Great Society" when he became convinced that his legacy depended on winning the Vietnam War. It appears that Obama has similarly lost his way.

MORE

LAST WEEK:

http://www.juancole.com/2010/12/top-ten-myths-about-afghanistan-2010.html

Top Ten Myths about Afghanistan, 2010

Posted on 12/27/2010 by Juan

10. “There has been significant progress in tamping down the insurgency in Afghanistan.”

Fact: A recent National Intelligence Estimate by 16 intelligence agencies found no progress. It warned that large swathes of the country were at risk of falling to the Taliban and that they still had safe havens in Pakistan, with the Pakistani government complicit. The UN says there were over 6000 civilian casualties of war in Afghanistan in the first 10 months of 2010, a 20% increase over the same period in 2009. Also, 701 US and NATO troops have been killed this year, compared to 521 last year, a 25% increase. There were typically over 1000 insurgent attacks per month in Afghanistan this year, often twice as many per month as in 2009, recalling the guerrilla war in Iraq in 2005.
9. Afghans want the US and NATO troops to stay in their country because they feel protected by them.

Fact: In a recent poll, only 36% of Afghans said they were confident that US troops could provide security. Only 32% of Afghans now have a favorable view of the United States’ aid efforts in their country over-all.

Dec. 6, 2010, ABC/BBC et al. poll of Afghans

8. The “surge” and precision air strikes are forcing the Taliban to the negotiating table.

Fact: The only truly high-ranking Taliban leader thought to have engaged in parleys with the US, Mulla Omar’s number 2, turns out to have been a fraud and a con man.
7. The US presence in Afghanistan is justified by the September 11 attacks.

Fact: In Helmand and Qandahar Provinces, a poll found that 92% of male residents had never heard of 9/11.
6. Afghans still want US troops in their country, despite their discontents.

Fact: one poll found that 55% of Afghans want the US out of their country. And, the percentage of Afghans who support Taliban attacks on NATO has grown from 9% in 2009 to 27% this year!

THIS YEAR:

http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2010/03/08/fiction-of-marjah-as-city/

Fiction of Marjah as City Was US Misinformation

by Gareth Porter, March 09, 2010

For weeks, the U.S. public followed the biggest offensive of the Afghanistan War against what it was told was a "city of 80,000 people" as well as the logistical hub of the Taliban in that part of Helmand. That idea was a central element in the overall impression built up in February that Marjah was a major strategic objective, more important than other district centers in Helmand.

It turns out, however, that the picture of Marjah presented by military officials and obediently reported by major news media is one of the clearest and most dramatic pieces of misinformation of the entire war, apparently aimed at hyping the offensive as a historic turning point in the conflict.

Marjah is not a city or even a real town, but either a few clusters of farmers’ homes or a large agricultural area covering much of the southern Helmand River Valley.

"It’s not urban at all," an official of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), who asked not to be identified, admitted to IPS Sunday. He called Marjah a "rural community."

"It’s a collection of village farms, with typical family compounds," said the official, adding that the homes are reasonably prosperous by Afghan standards.


THIS WEEK:

http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2010/12/26/1057503?sac=Local

Published: 12:00 AM, Sun Dec 26, 2010

Top 10 region stories of 2010

6. Wars taking toll on mental health

For years, studies have found that post traumatic stress disorder and other mental health problems are taking a toll on soldiers and their families.

The Fayetteville Observer took those studies a step further to see how the hidden wounds of war are affecting soldiers and their families here at home, and how the Army and the community are responding to them.

A five-day series in September revealed that Fort Bragg, the Veterans Affairs Medical Center, private health providers and nonprofit support services are ill-equipped to handle a mental health crisis that is just beginning to be seen and felt in Fayetteville.

The newspaper revealed that from January through July, more than 4,000 Fort Bragg soldiers sought psychological counseling at Womack Army Medical Center, nearly double the number from the year before.

Womack already is so overwhelmed that it sent more than 1,500 active-duty soldiers to private health providers in the last fiscal year.

The prospect of getting adequate care is bleak for veterans, too. Fayetteville’s VA center has only four case workers to oversee the largest number of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans in its region.

And the worst may be yet to come.

Studies show that one in five soldiers suffers from PTSD or another mental health issue, yet up to half of them won’t seek treatment out of fear that it will harm their careers. Instead, many will drink heavily or abuse drugs, compounding their problems even more, studies show.

“You mix all this together and it’s a recipe for disaster,” one community activist said.

MORE

[Kaleva]

86. Same can be said about the anti-war effort. It's been a failure from the beginning.

[Hissyspit]

95. Hunh?

So what?

[Hissyspit]

104. Afghan war claims 10,081 lives in 2010

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4680689

[awoke_in_2003]

76. "Legitimate questions"...

especially to one who (by their profile) studies military history.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PufPuf23]

38. Wow The unrecs are in force.

I have never made a post regarding unrecs/recs during my years at DU so mods be gentle.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

40. Study: Few Afghans know of 9/11, reason for war

The report by The International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) policy think-tank showed 92 percent of 1,000 Afghan men surveyed in Helmand and Kandahar know nothing of the hijacked airliner attacks on U.S. targets in 2001.

"The lack of awareness of why we are there contributes to the high levels of negativity toward the NATO military operations and made the job of the Taliban easier," ICOS President Norine MacDonald told Reuters from Washington.

"We need to explain to the Afghan people why we are here, and both convince them and show them that their future is better with us than the Taliban," MacDonald said.

link

First they need to explain to the American people why we are thre, and how our future will be better if we stay there. Also,

Most Americans oppose Afghan war

7 out of 10 Afghans oppose Nato force

Global Poll Finds Widespread Belief that Afghans Want NATO Forces Out

I guess these could be considered "oppose" votes in the above poll...

[Arkana]

42. Oppose, as does the vast majority of DU.

However, seeing as how this is most likely a not-so-thinly-veiled way to call people who don't hate Obama unthinking sheep, I will simply say that I voted for him knowing full well that he would escalate in Afghanistan--and that I disagreed heartily with that decision.

[rug]

49. I never implied there were unthinking sheep.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[UnseenUndergrad]

55. I oppose the war...

in principle like most of the Bushite wars (badly run, dubious motives, etc.).

I also oppose whatever may happen if the Taliban retake the whole of the south in light of a total pull-out, and whatever may happen to Pakistan.

I do support a humanitarian initiative designed to bring the country up to (at the very least) Chechen standards of Human rights, along with any appropriate force to safeguard those initiatives and the people they are helping. I also recognized that many tribal groups now loosely allied to the Taliban will have to be included in the process, anti-corruption measures targeting the Karzai regime and... well, I tend to shy away from the idea of a monarch with real power, being Canadian and all.

However, i did not vote, given Arkana's observation that this might just degenerate into a mudpit.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[Alameda]

65. I oppose it now and did before it started.

It would be nice if we took care of our own country for a change.

[awoke_in_2003]

77. I love your avatar...

and really miss that feisty gal.

[Alameda]

90. Me too. Can you imagine what she would have had to say

about the current TSA procedures? There are some Youtube of her on airport security. I can't help but laugh out loud everytime I hear them. May she rest in peace. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LA1dfHqLTc

[awoke_in_2003]

91. I posted this a few weeks ago...

it was great. She brings up another great woman in it- Molly Ivins. The world is a worse place without these two.

on edit: classic line- "my crotch set off her wand" :)

[eridani]

71. I was fine with going after OBL

When the US outsourced going after him and let him get away in favor of taking over the Afghanistan governmental process, it became very clear what the (very misplaced) priorities were.

[pacalo]

87. Same here. Get out now & spend that $720 million/day at home.

9,256 killed

10,622 wounded or killed

RIP Pat Tillman, most famous KIA who believed in the war in the beginning but lost faith in its purpose.

[lunatica]

85. I always opposed it.

[Hydra]

92. Opposed it from the start

We never had a problem with the Taliban before 9/11...even though we should have. We don't have a problem with them now, in fact. We just want to stay there and continue the occupation. If that point of contention ever gets resolved, we'll start hearing about how the Taliban are our "friends" again and how it's fine for them to do whatever they want as long as they kill the people we ask them to.

Strange world...blood is alchemically used to create gold, whether the normal variety, the black kind, or otherwise.

[mkultra]

96. did and still do

I remained unconvinced(much like many) that significant Al Qeada/Taliban forces are still present in along the Afghan/Pakistan border. No i don't think there are just a couple hundred, that number has always refereed to the number IN Afghanistan which only shows that they have pushed into the Pakistan. I still think Bin Laden is still alive and i think we have to work with Pakistan to kill them while we hold Afghanistan and keep them from returning. So ask your questions.

[Azathoth]

99. I think the war was justified, and I'm sympathetic to some of the reasons offered for escalating it

That said, I think eight years is long enough, and I'm well aware that perpetual warfare is the well-trodden road that many formerly-great nations and empires have followed to their inevitable ruin. One way or another, the Afghanistan situation needs to be brought to a prompt resolution.

Does that answer count as "support" or "oppose"?

[rug]

102. I think it counts as recognizing the reality of the situation.

Whether it was originally justified or not, the present course is, charitably, untenable.

[Hissyspit]

105. "Justified"

What will you find if you some research on the Bush admin lies and manipulation of the situation leading up to the invasion; do some research on just how much discussion there was on alternate approaches to the situation and whether it was heard or suppressed? I understand your concern over the term "support." There are issues over the term "justified," too.

[Kaleva]

106. The vote is closer then expected.

[WinkyDink]

107. Oppose utterly. I believe we are there for nefarious purposes, to wit:

Unocal's pipleline.
Opium-poppy fields.

[harun]

108. Don't forget the mineral deposits

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html

The real reason we are "stuck" in Afghanistan.

[truebrit71]

109. Started out supporting it, now I am against it. We cannot 'win', especially not with the politicians

calling the shots. America, it seems, has forgotten how Vietnam turned out.

You either go in, full bore and do it right, or you cut your losses and get out. You can't get a little bit pregnant. Do it right, or don't do it at all.