<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Obama said Wavering on Troop Escalation in Afghanistan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.juancole.com/2009/09/nyt-says-that-president-barack-obama-is.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.juancole.com/2009/09/nyt-says-that-president-barack-obama-is.html</link>
	<description>Thoughts on the Middle East, History and Religion</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:17:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.juancole.com/2009/09/nyt-says-that-president-barack-obama-is.html#comment-140</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:03:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.juancole.com/?p=4678#comment-140</guid>
		<description>Tell China they can deal with af/pak if they want to. But the west wants some of it&#039;s treasury bonds back.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And for a little more, we won&#039;t publicize the autrocities. Then they can drive into Uli&#039;s nest and corner all of the religious fanatics for us.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It&#039;s not like they don&#039;t have the manpower, equipment or motivation.  They just wanted us to have a go at it before they used their riches.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tell China they can deal with af/pak if they want to. But the west wants some of it&#39;s treasury bonds back.</p>
<p>And for a little more, we won&#39;t publicize the autrocities. Then they can drive into Uli&#39;s nest and corner all of the religious fanatics for us.</p>
<p>It&#39;s not like they don&#39;t have the manpower, equipment or motivation.  They just wanted us to have a go at it before they used their riches.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: إبن الصقلي</title>
		<link>http://www.juancole.com/2009/09/nyt-says-that-president-barack-obama-is.html#comment-137</link>
		<dc:creator>إبن الصقلي</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:33:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.juancole.com/?p=4678#comment-137</guid>
		<description>A new Usama bin Laden audio message about Afghanistan was released hours ago:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://occident.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-usama-bin-laden-audio-message-to.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New Usama bin Laden Audio Message &quot;To the People of Europe&quot; Released Today, Listen to It&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A new Usama bin Laden audio message about Afghanistan was released hours ago:</p>
<p><a href="http://occident.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-usama-bin-laden-audio-message-to.html" rel="nofollow">New Usama bin Laden Audio Message &quot;To the People of Europe&quot; Released Today, Listen to It</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Da' Buffalo Amongst Wolves</title>
		<link>http://www.juancole.com/2009/09/nyt-says-that-president-barack-obama-is.html#comment-109</link>
		<dc:creator>Da' Buffalo Amongst Wolves</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 03:57:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.juancole.com/?p=4678#comment-109</guid>
		<description>&quot;...working to improve the civilian bureaucracy...&quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Don&#039;t you get it? Or are you subconsciously suppressing the simple fact that the so-called &quot;civilian bureaucracy&quot; is a DIRECT THREAT to their culture and social system?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&#039;m SURE someone here besides me fathoms that.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It&#039;s EXACTLY the reason (but undoubtedly not the only one) the Talib are so successful recruiting people and the US is being reduced to crass bribery, which BTW will work even worse, and make even MORE enemies, than it did in Iraq.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;We&#039;re continually insulting these people in the name of our own self-interests. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In this case, the self-interest is what a &quot;civilian bureaucracy&quot; will garner us in the way of trade and resources, even more than an ally in the region, because the Afghan people will most likely hate us for a long, long time due to our government&#039;s childish self-serving arrogant attempt to, essentially culturally assimilate them from a distance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;&#8230;working to improve the civilian bureaucracy&#8230;&quot;</p>
<p>Don&#39;t you get it? Or are you subconsciously suppressing the simple fact that the so-called &quot;civilian bureaucracy&quot; is a DIRECT THREAT to their culture and social system?</p>
<p>I&#39;m SURE someone here besides me fathoms that.</p>
<p>It&#39;s EXACTLY the reason (but undoubtedly not the only one) the Talib are so successful recruiting people and the US is being reduced to crass bribery, which BTW will work even worse, and make even MORE enemies, than it did in Iraq.</p>
<p>We&#39;re continually insulting these people in the name of our own self-interests. </p>
<p>In this case, the self-interest is what a &quot;civilian bureaucracy&quot; will garner us in the way of trade and resources, even more than an ally in the region, because the Afghan people will most likely hate us for a long, long time due to our government&#39;s childish self-serving arrogant attempt to, essentially culturally assimilate them from a distance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ajaz Haque</title>
		<link>http://www.juancole.com/2009/09/nyt-says-that-president-barack-obama-is.html#comment-107</link>
		<dc:creator>Ajaz Haque</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:54:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.juancole.com/?p=4678#comment-107</guid>
		<description>PRESIDENT OBAMA, DO NOT SEND MORE TROOPS TO AFGHANISTAN&lt;br /&gt;The Generals are saying that without more troops war effort in Afghanistan will be lost. What they cannot visualize is that with more troops, failure will come sooner.. Many military and independent observers admit that 80% of Afghanistan is already lost to Taliban and this, after eight years of military effort!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Those of us old enough to remember early days of Vietnam war, remember well that troop levels were around 50,000 at first, then 100,000, then 250,000 and still the Generals wanted more, saying that we can only defeat the enemy if we have more troops. President Johnson listened to them and increased troop levels to over 400,000. United Sates still lost the war and to this day, hasty retreat of U.S. troops from Vietnam haunts many a mind.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Afghanistan is no different, same scenario will be played out again if troops are increased, only more American young men and women will die, more Afghans will be bombed and the resultant hatred against the U.S. will last for another 20 to 30 years. It is time to learn a lesson from history. &quot;Nations who do not learn from past mistakes are bound to repeat them&quot;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It is no fault of the Generals that they ask for more troops. This is what they know - have strength to fight the enemy. Generals are no politicians and it is not in their purview to think politically, that is the job of the politicians and the President.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It is still not too late to achieve a reconciliation in Afghanistan. Mullah Omar and other Taliban leaders have hinted more than once that they are willing to talk. U.S. has the means and the motive to accomplish a reconciliation. What is needed is an immediate ceasefire and a conference of all Afghan players, Northern Alliance, Hazaras, Pashtuns, Taliban and all others. U.S. and NATO should tell them that if you want foreign troops to leave, they have to reconcile and get along with each other.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Annul the Presidential elections and hold fresh elections after a peace conference so all parties can freely participate and if the people of Afghanistan want an Islamic Government, let them have one, only do not isolate them like before, so they go to bed with terrorists. Bring the new Afghan Government into the fold of international community and let them realize their responsibilities to the international community.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Afghanistan and its people have suffered a great deal in the super power rivalry. It is time this country was at peace and started rebuilding its infrastructure, an education system and created job opportunities for its young so they don&#039;t follow religious extremists. A Marshall style reconstruction plan for Afghanistan and Western part of Pakistan could change the political landscape of that part of the world and yet, it would cost a great deal less than extending the war.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;President Obama, do not send more troops to Afghanistan. Start a reconciliation process in that country and bring all American troops home from Afghanistan within a year.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PRESIDENT OBAMA, DO NOT SEND MORE TROOPS TO AFGHANISTAN<br />The Generals are saying that without more troops war effort in Afghanistan will be lost. What they cannot visualize is that with more troops, failure will come sooner.. Many military and independent observers admit that 80% of Afghanistan is already lost to Taliban and this, after eight years of military effort!</p>
<p>Those of us old enough to remember early days of Vietnam war, remember well that troop levels were around 50,000 at first, then 100,000, then 250,000 and still the Generals wanted more, saying that we can only defeat the enemy if we have more troops. President Johnson listened to them and increased troop levels to over 400,000. United Sates still lost the war and to this day, hasty retreat of U.S. troops from Vietnam haunts many a mind.</p>
<p>Afghanistan is no different, same scenario will be played out again if troops are increased, only more American young men and women will die, more Afghans will be bombed and the resultant hatred against the U.S. will last for another 20 to 30 years. It is time to learn a lesson from history. &quot;Nations who do not learn from past mistakes are bound to repeat them&quot;.</p>
<p>It is no fault of the Generals that they ask for more troops. This is what they know &#8211; have strength to fight the enemy. Generals are no politicians and it is not in their purview to think politically, that is the job of the politicians and the President.</p>
<p>It is still not too late to achieve a reconciliation in Afghanistan. Mullah Omar and other Taliban leaders have hinted more than once that they are willing to talk. U.S. has the means and the motive to accomplish a reconciliation. What is needed is an immediate ceasefire and a conference of all Afghan players, Northern Alliance, Hazaras, Pashtuns, Taliban and all others. U.S. and NATO should tell them that if you want foreign troops to leave, they have to reconcile and get along with each other.</p>
<p>Annul the Presidential elections and hold fresh elections after a peace conference so all parties can freely participate and if the people of Afghanistan want an Islamic Government, let them have one, only do not isolate them like before, so they go to bed with terrorists. Bring the new Afghan Government into the fold of international community and let them realize their responsibilities to the international community.</p>
<p>Afghanistan and its people have suffered a great deal in the super power rivalry. It is time this country was at peace and started rebuilding its infrastructure, an education system and created job opportunities for its young so they don&#39;t follow religious extremists. A Marshall style reconstruction plan for Afghanistan and Western part of Pakistan could change the political landscape of that part of the world and yet, it would cost a great deal less than extending the war.</p>
<p>President Obama, do not send more troops to Afghanistan. Start a reconciliation process in that country and bring all American troops home from Afghanistan within a year.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MonsieurGonzo</title>
		<link>http://www.juancole.com/2009/09/nyt-says-that-president-barack-obama-is.html#comment-105</link>
		<dc:creator>MonsieurGonzo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:24:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.juancole.com/?p=4678#comment-105</guid>
		<description>imho Military occupation is neither a necessary nor desirable prerequisite for the successful endowment of humanitarian aid, or the humanistic idealism that this unselfish &lt;i&gt;message&lt;/i&gt;, perhaps even moreso when done so with some sacrifice, delivers. Nor in history writ has military occupation ever been a successful preemption of or prophylactic remedy to the malady of terrorism. War making for the cause of peace keeping — not unlike ‘censorship’ in the guise of &lt;i&gt;protecting the people from the truth&lt;/i&gt; — always looks ridiculous, self-defeating or simply petty in historical retrospect.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Though it may come to pass that Mutually Assured Destruction prevents the extinction of species, yet perpetuates, ironically the archaic conduct of conventional warfare ~ I would argue that in the end the &lt;i&gt;idea&lt;/i&gt; of totalitarian Communism was defeated by our faith in and persistent pursuit of the &lt;i&gt;ideal&lt;/i&gt; of Democratic Capitalism. fwiw, I believe that Fundamentalism will likewise reveal itself to be a cultural dead-end, a parasitic affliction that does eventually defeat itself by means of its own decadent meaninglessness; that militant occupation and counter-occupation anarchy only perpetuate being barbarously archaic; and that our most powerful weapon against the cultural insult of Fundamentalism is, indeed our resolute faith in the higher purpose promise of Humanism.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&quot;Occupation&quot; becomes by its own being there the enemy of the future of a people and being their place. Only by freeing ourselves, &lt;i&gt;Over Here&lt;/i&gt; of this tense ‘possession’ pretense, &quot;&lt;i&gt;our strategy&lt;/i&gt;&quot; — can they begin building and being any notion of &lt;i&gt;their&lt;/i&gt; nation, &lt;i&gt;Over There&lt;/i&gt;&lt;b&gt;.&lt;/b&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>imho Military occupation is neither a necessary nor desirable prerequisite for the successful endowment of humanitarian aid, or the humanistic idealism that this unselfish <i>message</i>, perhaps even moreso when done so with some sacrifice, delivers. Nor in history writ has military occupation ever been a successful preemption of or prophylactic remedy to the malady of terrorism. War making for the cause of peace keeping — not unlike ‘censorship’ in the guise of <i>protecting the people from the truth</i> — always looks ridiculous, self-defeating or simply petty in historical retrospect.</p>
<p>Though it may come to pass that Mutually Assured Destruction prevents the extinction of species, yet perpetuates, ironically the archaic conduct of conventional warfare ~ I would argue that in the end the <i>idea</i> of totalitarian Communism was defeated by our faith in and persistent pursuit of the <i>ideal</i> of Democratic Capitalism. fwiw, I believe that Fundamentalism will likewise reveal itself to be a cultural dead-end, a parasitic affliction that does eventually defeat itself by means of its own decadent meaninglessness; that militant occupation and counter-occupation anarchy only perpetuate being barbarously archaic; and that our most powerful weapon against the cultural insult of Fundamentalism is, indeed our resolute faith in the higher purpose promise of Humanism.</p>
<p>&quot;Occupation&quot; becomes by its own being there the enemy of the future of a people and being their place. Only by freeing ourselves, <i>Over Here</i> of this tense ‘possession’ pretense, &quot;<i>our strategy</i>&quot; — can they begin building and being any notion of <i>their</i> nation, <i>Over There</i><b>.</b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Will</title>
		<link>http://www.juancole.com/2009/09/nyt-says-that-president-barack-obama-is.html#comment-104</link>
		<dc:creator>Will</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:59:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.juancole.com/?p=4678#comment-104</guid>
		<description>Biden also mentioned his philosophy in regard to Pakistani &quot;madrassas&quot; being a hindrance to democratic &quot;progress&quot;, thus the need for secular schools to be established in the areas that created the Taliban (assuming he meant the proverbial &quot;extremist madrassas&quot;).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I have mixed feelings about Biden&#039;s plans to secularize Pakistan through international development. Then again, I think Hillary&#039;s plan is doomed for failure, so his is the lesser of two evils.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Biden also mentioned his philosophy in regard to Pakistani &quot;madrassas&quot; being a hindrance to democratic &quot;progress&quot;, thus the need for secular schools to be established in the areas that created the Taliban (assuming he meant the proverbial &quot;extremist madrassas&quot;).</p>
<p>I have mixed feelings about Biden&#39;s plans to secularize Pakistan through international development. Then again, I think Hillary&#39;s plan is doomed for failure, so his is the lesser of two evils.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: McCutchen</title>
		<link>http://www.juancole.com/2009/09/nyt-says-that-president-barack-obama-is.html#comment-97</link>
		<dc:creator>McCutchen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:26:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.juancole.com/?p=4678#comment-97</guid>
		<description>William Lind is up with a devastating critique of the McChrystal report&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;The Washington Post yesterday made available an unclassified version of General Stanley McChrystal’s long-awaited report on the war in Afghanistan. Politically, the report is bold, in that it acknowledges the enemy has the initiative and we have been fighting the war – for eight years – in counterproductive ways. But intellectually, both as analysis and as prescription, it is five pounds of substance in a 50 pound bag.....&lt;br /&gt; It confuses the strategic and the operational levels of war. In fact, the report does not offer a new strategy, but a new operational-level plan. How the war is fought, i.e. by following classic counter-insurgency doctrine, is operational, not strategic.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;America must find a new strategy, since the current strategy depends on an Afghan state that does not exist. But the report offers no new strategy. The passage on page 2-20 thus ends up saying, “If you don’t give us more troops, we will fail. But you shouldn’t give us more troops unless we adopt a new strategy, which we don’t have. And even if you do give us the troops we want for the new strategy we haven’t got, they will not be enough to achieve success.” This reveals utter intellectual confusion.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The proper response of the White House, the Pentagon, and Congress to General McChrystal’s report is, “Back to the drawing board, fellas.”&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/2009/09/22/on-war-316-last-exit-before-quagmire/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Last Exit Before Quagmire&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>William Lind is up with a devastating critique of the McChrystal report</p>
<p><i>The Washington Post yesterday made available an unclassified version of General Stanley McChrystal’s long-awaited report on the war in Afghanistan. Politically, the report is bold, in that it acknowledges the enemy has the initiative and we have been fighting the war – for eight years – in counterproductive ways. But intellectually, both as analysis and as prescription, it is five pounds of substance in a 50 pound bag&#8230;..<br /> It confuses the strategic and the operational levels of war. In fact, the report does not offer a new strategy, but a new operational-level plan. How the war is fought, i.e. by following classic counter-insurgency doctrine, is operational, not strategic.</p>
<p>America must find a new strategy, since the current strategy depends on an Afghan state that does not exist. But the report offers no new strategy. The passage on page 2-20 thus ends up saying, “If you don’t give us more troops, we will fail. But you shouldn’t give us more troops unless we adopt a new strategy, which we don’t have. And even if you do give us the troops we want for the new strategy we haven’t got, they will not be enough to achieve success.” This reveals utter intellectual confusion.</p>
<p>The proper response of the White House, the Pentagon, and Congress to General McChrystal’s report is, “Back to the drawing board, fellas.”</i></p>
<p><a href="http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/2009/09/22/on-war-316-last-exit-before-quagmire/" rel="nofollow">Last Exit Before Quagmire</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.juancole.com/2009/09/nyt-says-that-president-barack-obama-is.html#comment-96</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:52:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.juancole.com/?p=4678#comment-96</guid>
		<description>Obama is &quot;wavering&quot; on troop escaltion in Afghanistan ???  I thought this man was so intelligent.  Has he NOT read the history books regarding the Soviets in Afghanistan and the Americans in Viet Nam?  I an stunnned and disappointed and frightened by Mr. Obama&#039;s &quot;wavering&quot; on an escalation of an unwinable war.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obama is &quot;wavering&quot; on troop escaltion in Afghanistan ???  I thought this man was so intelligent.  Has he NOT read the history books regarding the Soviets in Afghanistan and the Americans in Viet Nam?  I an stunnned and disappointed and frightened by Mr. Obama&#39;s &quot;wavering&quot; on an escalation of an unwinable war.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

