Democrats Grandstanding

We can have a fine debate over the wisdom of Congressional hand-wringing over War approriations as long as we don’t try to assert that they’re not within their rights to do so.
.
The howling that accompainied any and all effort to assert Congressional will in Iraq is still ringing in my ears two years later…..

So they’re “uninformed clowns” when they want to spend on dubious weapons systems, but we should question their integrity if they want to exercise you know, actual Congressional oversight when it comes to an actual war?
.
We deserve this examination. Congressional acquiescence in the face of generalities is what got us into the last quagmire. I agree with Klein’s premise that action in the region is needed, but it can’t hurt to have thorough scrutiny of the form that action should take.

Joe
.
I find your title post VERY ironic since this was in the article that you linked to.
.

But some Republicans have raised objections to the spending plan since the administration is also seeking money to move ahead with its plans to close down the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and move those detainees elsewhere. That position could give them some leverage on that issue if too many Democrats break with the president over the money for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

.
So on the one hand you have Democrats worried that Af/Pak will turn into a boondoggle and so they voice skepticism and that equals “grandstanding”
.
On the other hand you have Republicans who plan on opposing the supplemental just so they can try to keep GITMO opened. They are willing to deprive the money needed to fund the war in Af/Pak just to score a political victory and preserve the Bush/Cheney legacy and for that there is not even a passing mention.
.
I think you might want to rethink the whole premise of this post.

I be agreein’ Joe…a wee bit less grousing about th’ Congress exercisin’ its oversight, an’ a grand bit more focus on th’ G NO P exercisin’ their usual mutinous obstruction be in order here…

Blast – “grousing” = “grousin’” I be slow at me pirate-speak this mornin’.

“I frankly don’t know what I’m going to do on your supplemental request,” Mr. Obey told Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a hearing. “I’m very concerned that it is going to wind up with us stuck in a problem that nobody knows how to get out of.”
.
That’s what earned your scorn Joe?
.
This reeks of a “I’m a serious person” type of story. And too many “serious” people have been too wrong for too long.

pirate wench;

The democrats are now in control. The scrutiny should be on them, they will ultimately make whatever decisions are to be made over the next 2 years at least.
.
As for Joe, good conclusions. I agree with most all of what you say for a change.

Have to agree with most of the comments here. Congress will give the money but may want “some kind of strings attached”? That’s called Congressional oversight.
.
But some Republicans have raised objections to the spending plan since the administration is also seeking money to move ahead with its plans to close down the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and move those detainees elsewhere.
.
That’s grandstanding.

Also:
.
Ms. Pelosi also said lawmakers wanted to make sure the Pakistan government used “those resources in a way that is not just focused on the threat they fear from India.”
.
That seems eminently reasonable.

Once again, some basic facts: This is the war against those who perpetrated 9/11
.
Ummm . . . that would be Saudi Arabia, Joe. Repeating stuff over and over again doesn’t make it any more ture.

“true” not “ture”

Paul Krugman hits the Villagers where it hurts
.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/the-defining-moment/
.

The Bush administration was obviously — yes, obviously — telling tall tales in order to promote the war it wanted: the constant insinuations of an Iraq-9/11 link, the hyping of discredited claims about a nuclear program, etc.. And the question was, should you stand up against that? Not many did — and those who did were treated as if they were crazy.
.
For me and many others that was a radicalizing experience; I’ll never trust “sensible” opinion again. But for those who stayed “sensible” through the test, it’s a moment they’d like to see forgotten. That, I believe, is the real reason so many want to let torture and everything else go down the memory hole.

Bravo Krugman! And thanks sgw.

If you had any doubt that the Rasmussen polls are trash…
.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/pt_survey_toplines/april_2009/toplines_interrogations_april_21_22_2009
.
This was touted as saying 58% of people think the release of the memos endangered national security in its headline without noting the false strawman choices the people were given.

rusty ye scurvy bilge rat –
.
where were ye wi’ yer “scrutiny” when yer own party were not only spendin’ like a bunch o’ drunken sailors on shore leave, but hidin’ it so’s it didn’t show up in th’ budget numbers?
.
Ye be soundin’ like a right slimy hypocritical scoudrel now, wi’ yer sanctimonious scupper slop regardin’ “scrutiny”!
.
An’ I do be noticin’ ye had no word t’ say about yer own GNOP attemptin’ t’ hold th’ whole process hostage o’er th’ issue o’ the black brig at Guantanamo.
.
No “scrutiny” be needed there, right, rusty – ye squid ink-spurtin’ devil? Still tryin’ t’ confuse an’ obfuscate?
.
YARR!

Klein pulls out the phony 9-11 card again…
_
Once again, some basic facts: This is the war against those who perpetrated 9/11–and which was criminally neglected by the Bush Administration.
_
this war now has little or nothing to do with “those that perpetrated 9-11.” US involvement in Afghanistan over the last eight years has changed the very nature of the conflict itself — we’re now an accupying power in Afghanistan overseeing a corrupt puppet government, rather than “liberators” from the radical Taliban element.

“Obey is right that this an extremely difficult situation, but the President’s plan needs to be given a chance to succeed.”
.
Joe-I missing something. What’s being done to prevent Obama’s plan from succeeding? Obey asking a question or stating a concern? He’s supposed to just rubber stamp whatever Obama asked for because its a dangerous situation? Granted its a f**ked situation, but we can do things to make it worse, try not asking any questions.

Would it be torture if North Korea did it to the American journalists they are holding?
.
http://washingtonindependent.com/40343/so-is-it-torture-if-done-to-these-two-americans

Joe: Congress is charged with oversight and they need to do their job. What has happened to the billions poured into Islamabad? Billions. It is fair to ask the Pakistanis to explain why they hold down a large force on their border with Kashmir when their current problems lay in the North-West? If the argument is that they feel an imminent threat from India then they need to produce the evidence.

I have returned from a visit to Delhi and found that the Indians agree that Pakistan’s problems lie north-west and that the Indians are ready to talk to the Pakistanis about a mutual drawdown on the Kashmir side. The Indians know all about the threat from terrorism and have a stake in what happens to the Taliban. Their embassy in Kabul is a Taliban target.

So Pakistan needs to re-think its troop disposition. Question: can they trust the pro-Taliban elements in their own ISI?

Sometimes it is worth looking at this in an Asian context instead of how it plays in Washington.

Obey is a prickly character; but is he wrong to ask questions? Is that grandstanding?

“Obey is proposing to strangle the effort before it begins.”
.
Just to be clear, Joe supports that statement by linking to a story that had Obey saying “I frankly don’t know what I’m going to do on your supplemental request”?
.
What support am I missing among all of Joe’s insults?

Would it be torture if North Korea did it to the American journalists they are holding?
-
Great point.
-
And about the legitimacy of continuing the war…when you break something, you’re responsible for it. When you liberate a country, well…I would hope that the standard still applies when the stakes are that much higher.

Looks like we’re back to Joke Line, at least for today.

Yoshi, your rationale is the only one I can see for staying in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, a somewhat similar situation turned out very badly indeed for what is now the Soviet Union.

Friar Tuck
.
I don’t see the situation with the Soviet Union being analagous. They wanted to appropriate Afghanistan and keep it forever, not prop it up so it could thrive on its own. I personally don’t think we need to totally build them back up honestly. I think we need to get them to where their government will be stable and they have the resources to fight the Taliban and al Queda on their own. But if we try to colonize or institute democracy in Afghanistan we will lose.

Bush exploded Pandora’s Box. I wonder how long it will be before Osama Bin Laden takes over Pakistan?

Friar Tuck:
Unfortunately, a somewhat similar situation turned out very badly indeed for what is now the Soviet Union.
-
Er, I don’t think their goals were very…should I say…noble.

I think we need to get them to where their government will be stable and they have the resources to fight the Taliban and al Queda on their own.
.
The thing is, if they don’t want to do that, an awful lot of American soldiers will be killed before we give up trying to make them do it, which is the very thing that happened to the Soviets.
.
My analogy may be wrong, but I really think we’re going to regret what it looks like we’re about to do.

I don’t see the situation with the Soviet Union being analagous. They wanted to appropriate Afghanistan and keep it forever, not prop it up so it could thrive on its own.
.
Can I play devil’s advocate here?
.
Both we and the Soviets wanted Afghanistan to become what each envisioned from their viewpoint – neither especially wanted it to be left solely up to the Afghans.
.
We do seem to want the “democratic” decisions in a given country to be what WE think they should be . . . witness the Palestinian elections and our reaction to what happened.

Both we and the Soviets wanted Afghanistan to become what each envisioned from their viewpoint
.
Bingo! Thanks, afguy – somebody else almost always makes my point more clearly than I do.

Friar Tuck,
.
Did I just agree with you on this? Looks like I did.

Overlapping posts always seem to make things look like a disagreement when there is none.
.
We’re on the same page, Friar T. . .

Obama’s “plan” is to send more soldiers. OK. For what, exactly? What is the specific plan, what are the specific goals?
.
I agree with plukasiak up at 11:55. We are well past 9/11. It is ancient history now. The perpetrators have for the most part been accounted for. I can’t quite get my mind around what we are doing now and what lie in store. Flashes of Viet Nam prevail in my mind. Pointless meandering in an ill defined war against boggeymen.

There’s probably a fancy web term for overlapping posts that I don’t know.

They wanted to appropriate Afghanistan and keep it forever, not prop it up so it could thrive on its own.
_
wow, you don’t know anything about the history of the afghan war, do you? It was US support (under Carter) for the radical islamists who were engaged in domestic terrorist attacks that lead to the USSR being asked to help the Afghan government maintain order. This wasn’t something like Hungary or Poland, but a nation that was (with US help) turning into a “failed state” right on the border of the Soviet Union.

formerlyjames,
.
We’re still in that mindset that we need to mold the rest of the world in our idealogical image. Back then, it was a fight against “falling dominos”.
.
What’s changed now is that, because of recent history, others are starting to wonder why we need to be emulated.
.
The sooner we get our moral compasses back, the more others will want to imitate us.

Friar and afguy
.
Indeed that was our initial approach, trying to make Afghanistan reflect what we want them to be, however I don’t think thats the approach that President Obama is taking. The closest he came for a metric to when we would be able to leave Afghanistan was that when their police and army could take on the extremists on their own we could leave. Now obviously we are going ot have to do some nation building in the meantime to help the government be sustainable but I don’t think we are going to have our hands on the scale of their government near as much as we have in the past. If we were I would suspect Karzai would be gone by now one way or another.

Now obviously we are going ot have to do some nation building in the meantime to help the government be sustainable but I don’t think we are going to have our hands on the scale of their government near as much as we have in the past. If we were I would suspect Karzai would be gone by now one way or another.
.
sgwhite,
.
As long as we continue to be willing to abide with the direction the Afghans take (even if we don’t agree with it), I agree. If we do what we did when the Palestinians elected Hamas to represent them, there’s going to be blowback from the Afghans.
.
We simply have to recognize that they have a different lifestyle and different cultural priorities than we do. I’m sure WE have customs that THEY consider decadent. We’re going to have to learn to let them govern themselves.

Both we and the Soviets wanted Afghanistan to become what each envisioned from their viewpoint – neither especially wanted it to be left solely up to the Afghans.
.
We do seem to want the “democratic” decisions in a given country to be what WE think they should be . . . witness the Palestinian elections and our reaction to what happened.
-
Well, to be fair, there is a groundswell of support in Afghanistan for the kind of feminist, tolerant society we would like it to be…but the Taliban, as always, rains on their parade.
-
Our goal, I believe, is to create a climate secure enough to hold elections free of intimidation and threats – which are a big factor in Hamas’ dominance of the Palestinians. If you don’t think they’re kneecapping political opponents there, then you’ve got another thing coming.
-
We saw this in Iraq. The first elections resulted in secularists being marginalized due to the vast majority voting with their cultural bloc. Since Iraq was thought to be a more secularized society than others in the Middle East, this was quite interesting, but there was a simple explanation: the vast majority voted with their cultural bloc due to fear of the other ones. Now that Iraq has stabilized somewhat, secularists are on the rise.
-
Some modicum of peace of mind is necessary for true democracy.

mold the rest of the world in our idealogical image
.
This phrase can be interpreted in a number of ways, not all consistent. But if at a minumum “in our idealogocal image” means free from violent oppression, then there is indeed a defensible role for the US military. The problem is that we seem pretty selective about which evils we’re willing to address and which ones we turn a blind eye to.
In any event having a cohertent mission with definable metrics seems to be a pretty important part of any operation and if certain Congressmen feel uncomfortable, they’re certainly justified in raising their concerns.

afguy:
We simply have to recognize that they have a different lifestyle and different cultural priorities than we do. I’m sure WE have customs that THEY consider decadent. We’re going to have to learn to let them govern themselves.
-
Oppressing women is not a “different lifestyle.” That strongly implies moral equivalence of some sort.

yoshi,
.
I very much agree with the need for peace of mind.
.
But, with Hamas, it was also a matter of them being the ONLY ones who were trying to clean up the garbage in teh streets and fix the houses for the inhabitants. It wasn’t all about fear.
.
We were simply seen as the ones defending Israel in all cases. We did “talk the talk” about their rights but, when it came down to it, we never got around to doing anything concrete to help them.
.
I will admit that the election results might have been their version of “giving us the finger” too.

Oppressing women is not a “different lifestyle.” That strongly implies moral equivalence of some sort.
.
yoshi,
.
I strongly dislike that practice too. But we’re not going to change their practices regarding women at the point of a gun or by insinuating ourselves in their government. And I will point out that many of their customs have been around for a few thousand years and they are used to them.
.
Just as a point – there wasn’t a whole lot of “women’s lib” around in the Old Testament either. THAT’s the culture they come from.

But, with Hamas, it was also a matter of them being the ONLY ones who were trying to clean up the garbage in teh streets and fix the houses for the inhabitants. It wasn’t all about fear.
-
Yes, I heard that. Kind of like the Crips, if their name really is an acronym for Community Restoration in Public Service (or something, I’m not sure). But how do you think they make sure Fatah doesn’t do the same? Literally, rounding up the opposition and shooting all of them in the legs.
-
I’m sure that somebody would have been able to do it better than Hamas if given the chance.
-
We were simply seen as the ones defending Israel in all cases. We did “talk the talk” about their rights but, when it came down to it, we never got around to doing anything concrete to help them.
.
I will admit that the election results might have been their version of “giving us the finger” too.
-
Perhaps. I’m not exactly sure what we could have done to help them, though. Israel already gives Palestinians millions of dollars in aid a year. We have now done the same. Somehow I doubt that will result in anything concrete.
-
As for naming Hamas as a terrorist government…well…a rose is a rose is a rose. And when I say rose, I mean a craven, jingoistic regime with delusions of grandeur.

Joe
.
Per your update, if you left appropriations for wars in the hands of the Foreign Relations and Armed Services committee do you really think they would have the restraint not to drive the debt off a cliff? How many people on either committee are non interventionists? How many of the people on either committee don’t want MORE troops and MORE munitions than President Obama is pushing for? While there are a lot of problems with the appropriations committees they are still a check and balance on war spending.

yoshi,
.
It’s all in the eyes of the beholder, I guess. I see a pretty flower when I look at a poppy. The Afghans see a cash crop of opium. They have been a tribal/feudal culture for a very long time. We are going to drive ourselves to distraction if we keep trying to mold their 3000-year-old culture to our 250-year old example without giving them a VERY good template to follow.
.
And, right now, we suck from the “example” standpoint.

afguy:
I strongly dislike that practice too. But we’re not going to change their practices regarding women at the point of a gun or by insinuating ourselves in their government.
-
The problem is that you refer to the Afghan population as a monolithic entity. It is not. How else do you think girls are even trying to go to school?
-
What we are specifically trying to change at the point of a gun is the status of the cowardly jackasses that intimidate those other people at…the points of guns. That seems fair to me.
-
And I will point out that many of their customs have been around for a few thousand years and they are used to them.
.
Just as a point – there wasn’t a whole lot of “women’s lib” around in the Old Testament either. THAT’s the culture they come from.
-
In addition to the above, it is dangerous to assume that the current status quo is “thousands of years old.” While I know almost nothing about the cultural history of the Afghanis, I do know that a good lot of them want to make a break from the past if it was indeed as brutal as you think. Also, it’s dangerous to make presuppositions about other cultures – Iraq’s Shi’ite-Sunni divide hardly existed before Western influence in the 20th century, despite miles of journalistic screeds to the contrary.

Heh, I should have screened out the redundancy…

yoshi,
.
It’s also very dangerous to assume that the culture is just very fluid and we can change it oh-so-easily. We ran into Iraq because we were just sure we would be “greeted as liberators”.
.
As for the Shi’ite-Sunni divide, that’s a religious difference that has existed for several hundred years (if I’m not mistaken) and is based on differing beliefs about Mohammed.
.
Religion is definitely one divide that you tread lightly on. Remember Norther Ireland. These were both Christian beliefs that killed each other for a very long time, both believing they were right.

This one’s for you, yoshi: The Myth of American Selflessness
.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/the-myth-of-american-selflessness.php

I agree, these jokers need to stop wasting money on stuff that’s irrelevant to our needs in this country. Right now we spend so much money on defense, it’s ridiculous. I think good government does spend money on its people, but it does it correctly. Right now, things are out of whack. We spend too much on silly things and not enough on things that matter, like ending global poverty.

The Borgen Project (borgenproject.org) has some interesting insight into addressing the issues of global poverty, something we can remedy easily and sustainably.

Some interesting figures to ponder:
$30 billion USD: The annual shortfall to end global poverty.
$550 billion USD: The annual US defense budget.

All I’m saying , yoshi, is that we need to study and do “due diligence” before we go about trying to change ANYTHING in that part of the world.
.
The track record (British, Soviets, us) is uniformly bad.

“It was US support (under Carter) for the radical islamists who were engaged in domestic terrorist attacks that lead to the USSR being asked to help the Afghan government maintain order.”
.
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t it a Soviet puppet-government that asked the Soviets to send the Soviet army to help the Soviet puppet-government “maintain order” (i.e., hold on to power)? And wasn’t it Reagan (and the CIA) who really got the ball rolling in arming the “radical islamists”? You know, like giving Osama bin Laden surface-to-air missiles?

“The money for Af/Pak should be approved by members of Congress who actually know something about foreign and military policy”
.
Joe-congress does not work like that and you know it. Just because someone is sitting on committee does not mean that they are doing a competent job or even paying attention. This is a stupid argument here.

You know, like giving Osama bin Laden surface-to-air missiles?
.
shepherdwong,
.
Talk about the “Law of Unintended Consequences” . . .
.
We also supported Saddam Hussein against the Iranians. (Something about “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” . . . or something like that.
.
We always seem to be having to put out fires we set ourselves in that part of the world.

It’s also very dangerous to assume that the culture is just very fluid and we can change it oh-so-easily. We ran into Iraq because we were just sure we would be “greeted as liberators”.
-
Well, I think we’ve all gotten past the “easy” delusion.
-
As for the Shi’ite-Sunni divide, that’s a religious difference that has existed for several hundred years (if I’m not mistaken) and is based on differing beliefs about Mohammed.
-
Specifically, his successors. Shi’ites supported descendants of Mohammed – Sunnis did not.
-
Religion is definitely one divide that you tread lightly on. Remember Norther Ireland. These were both Christian beliefs that killed each other for a very long time, both believing they were right.
-
Yet, Catholics and Protestants seem to coexist just fine in other parts of the world.
-
Just because there was a split in Islam that resulted in different Muslims calling themselves Shi’ite or Sunni doesn’t mean that Shi’ites or Sunnis necessarily care. After all, the caliphate is now for all intents and purposes an anachronism. What the two factions in Iraq did care about had more to do with secular favors: who held the high ground in the political power structure, etc. Sunnis were favored all the way back to the British occupation, but not until al-Qaeda’s actions after Gulf War II did the tensions ratchet to civil war.
-
The roots of the current Iraqi rift were thus avoidable. It’s tragic.

Follow the history of our dealings regarding Iran and Iraq since the end of WWII.
.
We have always been “behind the curve” in our policy there. Feckless doesn’t begin to describe it.

[...] http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/04/24/democrats-grandstanding/ [...]

Here’s Patreaus’s take on Afghanistan:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/24/petraeus/index.html
.
I personally have no doubt that Afghanistan will be difficult, and I also agree with Obama that the solution, really is non-military given the history of the region.

yoshi,
.
Read up on the Shah. We put him in power and he was definitely “our type of leader” – westernized, pro-American. The fact that he was a bloodthirsty SOB that tortured his own people seemed to be a non-issue for our govt.
.
The Iranian ppl begged us to do something about him. We didn’t but Mother Nature did – in the form of cancer. When he left for treatment, they overthrew him, and guess who they blamed for what they had had to put up with?? Us! And they tossed us out too.
.
Which is where we ended up supporting Saddam in a war with Iran. And round and round we go . . .

plukasiak, thanks for the review of Soviet interests in Afghanistan.
.
Does anyone think that if one of the US’s neighbors became a failed Islamic extremist state, America wouldn’t invade?
.
I’m not defending the Soviet Union or their actions in Afghanistan. But realistically, they had no choice but to act. Superpowers don’t stand idly while their neighbors pull them into a spiral of religious extremism and terrorism. And right now we’re all paying the price for America successfully pulling the Soviet Union into that spiral.

All I’m saying , yoshi, is that we need to study and do “due diligence” before we go about trying to change ANYTHING in that part of the world.
.
The track record (British, Soviets, us) is uniformly bad.
-
I agree. We really misplanned our efforts. Time to fix that with facts gained from cold, hard experience.

afguy:
Yeah, we really screwed up supporting those pro-Western, secular dictators, didn’t we?
-
Big difference between ME policy then and now, though – we try not to enable despotism these days. Vastly different mindset.

Does anyone think that if one of the US’s neighbors became a failed Islamic extremist state, America wouldn’t invade?
.
rose,
.
Why do they have to be our neighbor? The Soviets have been fighting WWII ever since it ended. 20 million plus of their citizens died at the hands of invaded. They weren’t going to allow that (or anything like it) to happen again. Their leadership was psychotic about that happening.
.
That’s what all of those “satellite” countries are for – if you’re going to get to us, you’re going to have to come through them first.

OT, I got a question posted on the chat with AMC and Tucker Carlson
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/04/20/DI2009042001977.html
.
Tampa, Fla.: Does the Republican party really want to wear the label of being “pro torture”? Do they think that is a political winner for them next year?
.
Tucker Carlson: Depends who’s being tortured.

.

Ana Marie Cox: There’s something to be said for taking a stand that isn’t a political winner, simply because it’s the right thing to do. In torture, The GOP has a found an issue that is neither the right thing to do nor politically popular. So good luck with that.
.
For the record, I’d like to note that Dick Cheney is actually LESS POPULAR than torture itself, which suggests that people might be okay with HIM getting tortured. Not that it would eb the right thing to do.
.
Oh, but since he doesn’t consider waterboarding torture…

Big difference between ME policy then and now, though – we try not to enable despotism these days. Vastly different mindset.
.
I hope so, yoshi. I truly do . . .

There is at least one example of a successful federal type governmental body incorporating a tribal culture, respecting both and including the mores of both. It was an indigenous solution to being surrounded by failed examples of European colonialism. Perhaps something similar to the kind of government they have in Botswana would be helpful.

I strongly dislike that practice too. But we’re not going to change their practices regarding women at the point of a gun or by insinuating ourselves in their government. And I will point out that many of their customs have been around for a few thousand years and they are used to them.
.
afguy, well giving these sexist horrible men guns did help cement the system of sexual apartheid seen in Afghanistan today. It’s not like we have no responsibility for the current situation, including the pre 9/11 situation.
.
That said, you’re right that gender equality cannot be introduced at gunpoint. America helped construct this crazy destructive society that is soft on terrorism, and unfortunately it’s not as easy to fix this mess as it was to get into it.

I remember when we first broke with Saddam in the early ’80s. He had demanded that we give him $400 million dollars in arms to fight Iran and we said no.
.
Another good point to remember is that immediately following the Gulf War, we had an opportunity to intercede in the Shia revolt in Basra.
.
We didn’t and some 30,000 were executed.
.
We just have historically not been good a freindship. The foreign policy espoused by Obama is refreshing to say the least, and I think, in the end, we will accomplish a lot more in the future than we did in the past.
.
I’m not sure that we will be able to fix Afghanistan, though. With Sharia popular, it will be very, very tough to accept the ascendancy of the Taliban. Pakistan is becoming a bigger problem by the day.
.
I think that our raids into Pakistan are backfiring in that we are trading vaguely percieved gains from strikes we cannot confirm as successful for a general rejection of those policies by the locals.
.
Don’t know which is worse…

rose,
.
My point is that we will be more successful by giving them a good model to follow, one in which we “walk the walk”. If we try to impress our values on them without a good moral model, we will be seen as just another foreign power trying to impose our will.
.
The Vietnamese did not always see us as a benevolent helper. To them, we were just another in a long line of foreign invaders (the French being the ones who handed off to us).

“Big difference between ME policy then and now, though – we try not to enable despotism these days. Vastly different mindset.”
.
I’m not sure that we can. Our actions over the last 30 years of letting Israel ‘run free’ while putting up hoops for the Palestinians to jump through is only bringing us an endless cycle of extremism in Isreal and Palestine. After all, Abbas, the only moderate left, has nothing whatsoever to show for his efforts.
.
So obviously, Hamas has ascendancy in Gaza and their standing in that part of the world is growing. Just like Hizb Allah’s.

A free hand given to Bush led to disaster. It could happen with Obama, too.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

If we were the first foreign power coming into this area, we MIGHT have more success.
.
But EVERYTHING we do is tainted by the history that precedes us.

A free hand given to Bush led to disaster. It could happen with Obama, too.
.
Exactly right, Matt.
.
Hubris respects no political labels.

afguy:
.
Out problem is that we have, up until now, have almost invarriably been on the side of the established governments. We saw it in SA, Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, the Phillippines, etc etc etc.
.
When those cronies started acting up, and really started getting out of hand, we not only wound up with egg on our faces, but problems that were bigger than the ones we were trying to solve.
.
In Africa, our policieas were a lamentable failure.

“But EVERYTHING we do is tainted by the history that precedes us.”
.
This is the most apt single statement I’ve seen anyone make!

53-3,
.
We have ALWAYS been reactive in nature in our foreign policy. Looking a generation or two ahead is NOT something we do well. Nor is having any absolute moral principles.
.
The phrase “pragmatic foreign policy” just makes my teeth grind.

53, your observation is of course colored by your pro-Palestinian stance. The historic roots of Israel’s actions inexorably lead to defense. They are a far cry from despotism.
-
You will probably tell me about the world’s largest open air prison now, or something like that, but remember…nobody’s a true good guy over there.

wow, you don’t know anything about the history of the afghan war, do you? It was US support (under Carter) for the radical islamists who were engaged in domestic terrorist attacks that lead to the USSR being asked to help the Afghan government maintain order. This wasn’t something like Hungary or Poland, but a nation that was (with US help) turning into a “failed state” right on the border of the Soviet Union.
.
Wow, and if I may say, that’s the most distorted telling of the history of the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan I’ve ever seen. You do understand that those “radical islamists” who the “US support[ed]” were actually Pashtuns were were lashing out against the reforms that the communist government in Kabul was trying to implement. And you do realize that, prior to the invasion by the Soviets, that those supporting Jamiat Islami (the Islamic party causing the trouble) was supported by Pakistan (much like its successor, the Taliban). And you also realize that the so-called “help” the Soviets offered came only after Taraki was overthrown by Amin.
.
Furthermore, if you’re basing your assessment of US support of the Afghan mujahadeen on Brzezinski’s assertions that the US was trying to induce an invasion, keep in mind that the order that Jimmy Carter signed in July, 1979 was ramping up anti-communist propaganda activities. It was not directly aiding an insurgency that had started and been funded by Pakistan in 1975.

In the Middle East, without any moral or ethical guide, today’s “pragmatic foreign policy” decision is tomorrow’s foreign policy disaster.

“We also supported Saddam Hussein against the Iranians. (Something about “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” . . . or something like that.”
.
And that was after Reagan traded arms to Iran. Why did the Regan Administration hate America?

afguy, we actually agree. It’s pointless to stay there, although I would support both large-scale contributions to NGO’s – especially ones led by Afghan women – and increased opportunities for women to leave the country. Obviously we can’t accept all women who want to leave, but it’s fair to claim two X chromosomes as sufficient qualification for refugee status in Afghanistan.
.
The level of violence against women in Afghanistan paradoxically shows there is no consensus in favor of sexual apartheid. It’s easier for us to think that they just want to be like this, but obviously that’s too simplistic. The unfortunate truth is that Afghan society is in a state of war over the status of women, and America’s endorsement of gender equality may actually be counterproductive.

And that was after Reagan traded arms to Iran.
.
Regarding our lack of consistent policy in that part of the world . . . I rest my case.

Of course my opinion is clouded by my pro-Palestinian stance. Just like your opinion is clouded by your pro-Israeli stance.
.
But it doesn’t really matter Yoshi. The fact is, the only moderate left is a Palestinian named Abbas, who, in fact, had his land handed to Israel by Bush for his efforts.
.
That, and the release of a few thousand prisoners, who, in the long run, were re-arrested anyway.
.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, regardless of my stand on the Palestinians, our past foreign policies have been a complete failure. That’s why I welcome the change Obama is offering.
.
Like you, Afguy, I hope Obama is smart enough to avoid getting bogged down in Afghanistan.

Regarding our lack of consistent policy in that part of the world . . .
.
I’ll assume you mean, other than consistently short-sighted and stupid.

53, your observation is of course colored by your pro-Palestinian stance. The historic roots of Israel’s actions inexorably lead to defense. They are a far cry from despotism.
.
yoshiattack, I’ve seen variations of that statement countless times, but its historical blindness never ceases to amaze me.

“The unfortunate truth is that Afghan society is in a state of war over the status of women, and America’s endorsement of gender equality may actually be counterproductive.”
.
This is a real problem for them. That was the reason for my comments about Sharia above. The problem is that we are between a rock and a hard place. Do we use force if they don’t implement a humane form of Sharia? Is there even any such thing? How can we get change there without getting committed militarily to a losing cause (against a populist resistance).
.
As for our foreign policy, past Dems have been a little more proactive than the GOP, but neither moved far enough from the norm to make any difference at all in the outcomes engenedered by our long standing foriegn policy framework that existed prior to Obama’s attempts to move away from it.

The historic roots of Israel’s actions inexorably lead to defense.
.
Think about the premise that “the best defense is a good offense” regarding Israel. Then, apply the same to the Soviet Union after WWII. We always portrayed their actions as directed toward world domination. A case could be made that they were just trying to keep their perceived enemies too busy elsewhere to invade them directly.
.
Israel doesn’t have enough of a population to fight a prolonged war ANYWHERE. They deal with EVERY threat with overwhelming force. Can’t afford to do it any other way.
.
Sorry, no solutions here . . . but what I just said was reflected by someone who served in the IDF who was my instructor in a class I attended. (Best week I have ever spent whose benefit had NOTHING to do with the training presented.)

I think Yoshi doesn’t realize the moment of my comments. I’m not really just commenting on GOP foreign policy, I’m commenting on the historical framwork that has been followed by both the GOP and the Dems in the past.
.
I don’t view the past differences between the GOP and Dems as nearly as significant as Obama’s current efforts to change the bearing and course of our foreign policy now.
.
We desparately need a foreign policy that is not a continuous drain on our resources. War and conflict, though necessary on occasion (I was for Afghanistan and the first Gulf war), are not the only way to advance America’s interests.
.
Sometimes, we can get those interests met by willing cooperation in which both sides have their interests met.

Its almost 3pm EST and we have had all of 2 posts on Swampland today. WTF is going on here?

Afguy:
.
I think Israel has gone as far as it can go in the direction of hawkishness. Even as we speak, even though they have what is likely to be their worst government in their history, they are not rattling any sabres right now.
.
This is good, because I interpret it is the kind of case where you have someone that talks a lot of cr@p, then, all of a sudden, winds up in a situation in which they have to follow it up, and suddenly realizes that they cannot, after all, keep doing what they’ve been doing.

Its almost 3pm EST and we have had all of 2 posts on Swampland today. WTF is going on here?
.
sgwhite,
.
Didn’t notice . . . I was enjoying the best, most civil discussion I’ve been involved in in some time.

sg, is there something wrong with your browser, this thread grew from 15 or so this morning to almost 90.

53_3,
.
I think he was implyinh that Joe K/Karen/Shearer/JNS are falling down on the job.

Sorry, “implying” not “implyinh”.

Oh, gotcha. Density pervades me…

You slingers fipped, Afguy.

My fingers aren’t the only things that’s slippery, 53_3.
.
Wifey says same thing about my mental faculties.

afguy:
Yes, paranoia is a huge factor.
-
53:
My point is that the Israelis are not despots. As for the mainstream direction of this thread, we’re just tossing hypothetical directions on now. It would be nice if we could make foreign policy less of a burden, stop thinking behind the curve, etc. Not much to say to that.

Just out of curiosity, I’ve been see a lot of suicide bombing in Iraq, and wonder if this might be Al Queda trying to stir things up again.

Gotta go and take #2 son to baseball practice, guys.
.
It’s been a REAL pleasure today.

I notice that the one thing missing from this thread is America’s responsibility in allowing this radicalized Islam to grow and permeate the area. It’s not just Israel and Palestinians that fed this crap. I think our insatiable need for oil might have a little something to do with it.
.
We have protected the Saudis at all costs so we don’t talk much about how they have funded the spread of this radicalized Islam. They continue to fear losing power in their country so they will continue to honor the deal they made with the wahhabi Imams not to persuade the people to turn on them in exchange for the continued financial support of their prostelityzing, especially in Pakistan.

Same, afguy. Have a nice day.

53_3
.
I am enjoying reading the thread as much as participating but you have to remember that as of late we don’t get ANY posts for the weekend. That means its likely we will be suck with just this thread till monday. Now I don’t know about anybody else but I get tired of having to go through 7 or 8 pages of comments to see what I have missed. There is a lot of sh*t going on today but we aren’t hearing about any of it on Swampland. As a matter of fact Greg Sargent/Marcy Wheeler/Spencer Ackerman have basically decoded what it was that Dick Cheney wanted declassified, how it came to be put together, and why he requested it a month ago.
.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/cheney-seeking-doc-that-details-what-khalid-shaykh-muhammad-revealed-under-torture/

Have a good one afguy, tell him to lay off the curve ball!

SGW: Actually Plum Line seems to be going great with the torture memos stuff. This is a very interesting thread. It occured to me that someone in Europe might be discussing our treatment of Indians here and how we brought our civilisation to them. It might induce some modesty on our part about trying to solve problems in Afghanistan.

“My point is that the Israelis are not despots.”
.
That is a point of view, Yoshi. When one gives the benefit of the doubt to one side, and not to the other, it’s easy to say this.
.
I’m not taken by Hamas, Yoshi. As a matter of fact, that particular sentiment is based on rhetoric that has been thrown out there by your peers and yourself.
.
Hamas is despotic, in a sense, yet, it is really not much different than the current extremist government. After all, you have some whom even Joe has called bigots at the levers of the Israeli government, and despite my assertion a couple comments ago, the potential for crimes against humanity to be commited by this government (particularly ethnic cleansing), is very high.
.
Either way, one aspect of any productive foreign policy now that the only moderate left over there is Abbas, will be for us to find a way to marginalize the extremists (Hamas and the current Isreali government) and push both of them towards an equitable solution.
.
Right now, Israel’s dog is being wagged by the “settlers”, who inherently are representative of all the ills that Israel has to offer to the Palestinians, and, likewise, Hamas offers the same to Israel.
.
My own opinion is that Hamas isn’t really much of a threat, and it’s hate is no more or no less significant by the hatred engendered by the extremists in Isreal.
.
I think that the US is going to have to force Israel to accept a solution. This can’t go on.
.
And Hamas?
.
If there’s peace, Hamas can’t survive, but as long as someone like Abbas exists, who has amply demonstrated that negotiation with Isreal is pointless, Hamas draws breath.
.
It’s time for Abbas to get a reward, big time, and for that to happen, Isreal will have to give up some cherished goals*.
.
*Expansion of the “settlements” into Isreali territory
*Yield East Jerusalem to the Palestinians
*Palestinians surrender right of return

See you, afguy. Hope your number two whacks it over the fence!

I think Dee has a point in that it is pointless right now to get too bogged down in the Israel/Palestine issue other than to say that I think Arabs view it as a ‘benchmark’ to measure just what kind of policy they can expect.
.
The Saudi example is one in which we are really treading on dangerous ground. The populations of nearly all those states in that region are polarizing toward Islamic extremism. As long as the populations of all these countries percieve us as the enemy, this will be so.
.
So like Dee has pointed out, we need to do things that these people can interpret to mean that we are not their enemy.

sg:
.
“If this is right, the question about the doc Cheney wants, as Spencer Ackerman puts it, is this: “One wonders when the CIA was asked to put that document together, and by whom.”
.
Obviously before July 13, 2004 and let me guess:
.
Dick Cheney himself…

SG-congrats on getting a question into Tucker and AMC. I find both insufferable but at least you got a response.
Seeing someone as fey as Tucker talking tough about torture is pretty rich.

Sorry, Dee, I think I put words in your mouth.
.
I take ownership of the opinions in that comment (3:29PM)

PNNTO
.
Thanks. All I really wanted was to put the term “pro torture” in connection with the GOP out into the mainstream to see if it takes off. Seeing Tucker Carlson try to answer the question was just a plus.

“Why God Created CSPAN”
.
Michele Bachmann edition (again)
.

Two Words:
.
Timothy McVeigh

[...] an update to a brutal takedown of Congressional appropriators, Joe Klein writes: Various commenters are wondering whether I oppose Congressional oversight. Absolutely not, [...]

53 — It’s okay, because I believe that by not dealing with the Saudi exportation of wahhabism, we have helped to unleash a radical islamic threat on the world that uses the israeli/palestinian conflict as an excuse to wreak havoc on the rest of the world.
.
By definition these radicals will never stop and until we are willing to deal with the source in a responsible way (and by that I mean according to our values rather than in the best interests of the oil companies) we cannot expect to thwart radicalized Islam in Afghanistan, Pakistan or anywhere else.
.
BTW — there is an American interest here as well. If we hadn’t been so incredibly short sighted and only concerned ourselves with continued profits of the oil companies, we would have been forced to develop alternative technologies long ago. As a result, this petro dictatorships would be broke and powerless, our car companies wouldn’t be failing, taking our manufacturing base with it and our economy wouldn’t be in turmoil.
.
Moreover, without the petro dollars to fund the so called palestinian freedom fighters/terrorists organizations, the palestinians would have found their way toward a Ghandi/King based non-violent resistance movement long ago. And frankly, it is the only means to capture the moral high-ground when up against a democratic power.

Tampa, Fla.: Does the Republican party really want to wear the label of being “pro torture”? Do they think that is a political winner for them next year?
.
Tucker Carlson: Depends who’s being tortured.
.

Yeah, I’ll bet the idea of dudes in stress positions really gets Tucker’s bowtie whirling.
.
But seriously, it’s alarming that the GOP is willing to endorse the systematic infliction of pain on helpless human beings. It doesn’t even seem to register how that might be percieved as repulsive.

Dear Joe Klein,
.
OT but this looks like a hell of story that’s right up your alley:

It seems that former intelligence officials are leaking information to politically embarrass a Democratic member of the intelligence committee, potentially the Democratic speaker of the House–because Pelosi is now being pulled into the story, and a big donor to the Democratic party. Whatever Harman did or did not do should come out if those documents are declassified and released and an investigation either ruled out, or commenced. It shouldn’t continue to be raised through anonymous leaks from former intelligence officials.

.
How ’bout using your contacts at “the company” to let the public know the truth about what they are doing, instead of the agency using you to tell the public just what they want them to hear? Just a thought.

SG: Did Bachmann just come out against the no-fly list?

Art
.
Hell if I know. I guess she doesn’t want anybody with gun in their carry on luggage, wearing a shirt with a picture of an aborted child, and a green beret on their head to get hassled at the airport.

Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t it a Soviet puppet-government that asked the Soviets to send the Soviet army to help the Soviet puppet-government “maintain order” (i.e., hold on to power)? And wasn’t it Reagan (and the CIA) who really got the ball rolling in arming the “radical islamists”? You know, like giving Osama bin Laden surface-to-air missiles?

consider yourself corrected
.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
.

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
.
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
.
B: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?
.
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
.
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

“consider yourself corrected”
.
I think I won’t. Doesn’t really address anything I said that, “President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul,” 18 months before he left office. If anything, it supports the fact of a “pro-Soviet” puppet government (which is what the Afghans were fighting) and the vastly different proportions of Carter’s and Reagan’s program of “aid”. Thanks for the excerpt though, hadn’t read that interview before.

This spending is insane. There is NO DANGER in this world, only fearmongering meant to line the pockets of cronies. We should do away with all aspects of the military, the Secret Service, the FBI, CIA, and the Deptartment of Homeland Security. This nonsense fearmongering has been shoved down our throats from the beginning of time. For what? I’m still waiting for even the slightest danger to rear its’ ugly head. Why do we spend all of this money on this garbage? I’ve read all of the history books, not one leg for the fearmongers to stand on in any of the books I’ve read. We, as a Nation, would be much safer, and have more money to spread around, without Secret Service, the Military, the FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security. The only bad things that happen in this world are caused by the fearmongers and their troops. Once we do away with those horrible groups, the police and firefighters need to go next. This would be a much better country without any of those advocates of fear. I, for one, voted for change, now I’d like to see that change.

Andrew Sullivan, from late March:
~
“I haven’t had time to absorb the president’s decision to double-down on Afghanistan this morning. I am, however, skeptical for two reasons. The first is that pacifying that entire region – the region that defeated the British and the Soviets – is a gargantuan task whose costs do not seem to me outweighed by the obvious security benefits. As long as we can prevent terrorist bases forming that could target the US mainland, I do not see a reason for this kind of human and institutional enmeshment. My fear is that it multiplies our enemies, drags us further into the Pakistan nightmare, and will never Westernize a place like Afghanistan without decades-long imperial engagement. Secondly, I do not believe that Iraq is as stable as some optimists do, and fear that we will not be able to get out as cleanly as the president currently envisages. To be trapped more deeply in both places in a year’s time seems Bush-like folly to me.
~
To be fair, I’m going to study it some more and look at the specifics. But I do want to address David Brooks’ column today, where I am sure he is offering his good-faith judgment. This is what I disagree with:
~
‘After the trauma in Iraq, it would have been easy for the U.S. to withdraw into exhaustion and realism. Instead, President Obama is doubling down on the very principles that some dismiss as neocon fantasy: the idea that this nation has the capacity to use military and civilian power to promote democracy, nurture civil society and rebuild failed states. Foreign policy experts can promote one doctrine or another, but this energetic and ambitious response — amid economic crisis and war weariness — says something profound about America’s DNA.’
~
It is part of America’s DNA to be occupying and remaking an entire foreign semi-country thousands and thousands of miles away, with an utterly alien culture, institutions, religion and polity? And it’s part of American DNA to do that while grappling with almost unprecedented levels of government debt, vast unfunded future liabilities, a homeland with crumbling infrastructure, a climate crisis, 140,000 troops still in another country, and a global economy that’s in the worst protracted downturn since the Second World War? Remember that David was only just warning of Obama taking on too many projects at once. But another expanded war in another distant country against another close-to-undefeatable foe? Bring it on! Everything is too much except empire. That’s the American DNA.
~
Can you imagine what Jefferson or Washington would say of such insanity and hubris? This is why empires never die willingly. But die they always do.”

“President Obama is doubling down on the very principles that some dismiss as neocon fantasy: the idea that this nation has the capacity to use military and civilian power to promote democracy, nurture civil society and rebuild failed states.”
.
The trouble is, that assumes that’s the neocon fantasy, rather than say protecting the supply of oil and buttressing Israel through giant forward military bases. Since they’re all proven, serial liars who have used every conceivable justification for war: 1) it’s stupid to assume one can know their true motives and 2) we probably never will really know for sure.

“This is why empires never die willingly. But die they always do.”
Whether they become over extended, lose the backing of their citizens or spend themselves into oblivion, they all die eventually. I think the big question is whether we contract gradually on our own or are forced to do it in a much briefer period of time. The number of troops and bases we have in countries throughout the world isn’t something we can sustain without enormous sacrifices at home. I can’t see us making the sacrifices. The global economic equation has changed. We’re not going to bring our brand of democracy to the world because much of the world just doesn’t want what we have. One of our big problems is thinking that the rest of the world shares our values and our culture. They don’t. Someone upthread brought up Palestine and Hamas. We have to face the fact that some people are going to elect governments that don’t look like ours, act or share our values. We have wildly divergent factions over here and we were all brought up in basically the same culture. How can we possibly expect people in countries that have little in common with us to revere malls, landscaped lawns and barbecues with the neighbors?

Good pt. good Shepherd–Sully ignores the eternal resource grab. But compared to Joe Propaganda Klein, he’s a breath of fresh air at times. Sully’s a hybrid between your average MSM troglodyte (JK, Brooks, Friedman Unit) and GG, Amy Goodman (i.e. real progressives). I’m sure off the record he’s more intellectually honest, but the Atlantic ain’t the Prog. Populist.
~
And Sacred, re: citizens’ support, I could never understand why both Kerry and Obama didn’t run constant ads comparing the spending in Iraq/Afghan vs. our own utter lack of domestic nation bldg. Or why Obama didn’t far more vigorously combat criticisms of his “stimulus” plans by pointing out the 2.4$ trillion the two wars will end up costing us–for what, to secure peak oil profits!? The entire template of civilization has run its course, as well as our empire. In fact, it’s all I can do not to see a variation of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road coming to fruition. With my first child on the way, that’s a hard portrait of the future to keep bottled up.
~
Re: Kerry/Obama’s rhetorical positioning, my lack of comprehension was self-delusive in nature. I simply had to pull my head out of my romanticized arse (happens like clockwork every 4 years), realizing that as far as our fo-po goes, there is little change we can believe in, regardless of which party occupies the WH. Obama never vigorously made that case cuz he’d never have been palatable to the powers that be had he done so–and we see how threatening he is to the MIC when we peruse his DOD budgets, the 50,000 troops that will remain in Iraq indef. and the aforementioned “double down” madness. e.g.:
~
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20090124.htm

I think I won’t. Doesn’t really address anything I said that, “President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul,” 18 months before he left office. If anything, it supports the fact of a “pro-Soviet” puppet government (which is what the Afghans were fighting) and the vastly different proportions of Carter’s and Reagan’s program of “aid”. Thanks for the excerpt though, hadn’t read that interview before.
.
Furthermore — and I mentioned this earlier in this thread, but it went unnoticed — the order that Carter signed in July 1979 was to increase “anti-communist propaganda” in Afghanistan. This wasn’t propping up the Jamai Islami — the Islamist party that was fighting the Afghan government since 1975. That job, like the propping up of the Taliban two decades later, was enthusiatically taken on by the Pakistanis.
.
I’ll conclude by pointing out that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was an operation against the Amani government, which overthrew the government of President Tarakai. The invasion began with Soviet commandos covertly striking at the upper echelons of the Afghan government and the Red Army sneaking over the border. Not exactly how one typically responds to a “request” for assistance.

[...] Democrats Grandstanding [...]

You are a wise man sacredh. If you care to read my Blog reference near your comment and go visit there. But you sum it up as well as anybody can. The war in Afghan won’t solve anything and just postpone the outcome. Do leave a comment in my Blog; time I quit this one; it’s getting me down, all these insults at each other. For what? For nothing, or more good men dying in the Afghan rat holes. For nothing!

[...] Democrats Grandstanding [...]

[...]  Democrats Grandstanding [...]