Since President Obama had put off making a decision on his Afghanistan policy until he saw the results of the planned November 7 runoff, Abdullah’s decision puts Washington in an awkward position. Abdullah is said to be seeking to postpone the runoff until spring, 2010, which would much extend the period of instability. In contrast, Clinton seems to be crowning Karzai the winner by virtue of Abdullah’s withdrawal. But the Karzai presidency has been badly if not unalterably wounded by the ballot fraud practiced in August, and of which the retention of the same electoral commission would guarantee a repetition.
And here is what I take away from all this. The debate in Washington has been over a counter-insurgency campaign versus a limited counter-terrorism campaign. Counter-insurgency implies a certain amount of state-building. Counter-terrorism implies that state-building is impossible or very, very difficult. Clinton backs counter-insurgency, while Vice President Joe Biden supports counter-terrorism.
The reason Clinton is so eager to insist that Karzai’s election is legitimate despite its obvious illegitimacy is that Abdullah’s withdrawal puts paid to the idea that there is a plausible Afghan government partner for US counter-insurgency. There is not.
Biden may or may not win the argument in Washington. But there is now no doubt that he should win that argument. Sending another 40,000 troops into Afghanistan to shore up a Karzai government that tried to steal the election and demonstrated so little accountability that the officials who winked at the fraud are still on the electoral commission– that is an absurd proposition.
If all that is left in Afghanistan is a counter terrorist strategy, won't it just create two more "terrorists" for each one it kills? Isn't the realistic alternative to trying to build a viable state just to go home and admit defeat? I suppose you can dress it up to appear like "mission accomplished" if that's more palatable.
Obama and Clinton seem to be in over-their-heads trying to find a US policy for Afghanisan will work. I suspect that is because there is no such animal and the US refuses to leave South Asia with their tail tucked 'tween their legs. So this sets the stage for one blunder after another and oh so many years of endless war. A great leader knows when it is time to walk away but Mr. Obama does not seem to be one of them.
Afghanistan "Elections". Dr Abdullah Abdullah speech. Homey don't play no sham elections. (neither should we)
CNN & FOX would talk over live speech. CNN & FOX would not translate live speech. CNN & FOX would cut to commercials during live speech. (cnn & fox must wait for orders)
Now back to your regularly programed CNN & FOX Propaganda
You couldn't find a more dramatic representation of the difference between the two versions: CNN International and the watered-down, manufactured consent of the CNN domestic version.
It's too bad that our domestic debate is framed by the boundaries of CNN domestic version, and those of fiercer neo-conservative hawks on Fox News. Very sad.
At this point we are not fighting a "Counter Terrorism" OR a "Counter Insurgency". When they can attack a firebase and almost overrun it, we are fighting a war against an army. A non-traditionally organized army, but a serious one. Nobody is admitting that this is the reality.
This is part of a post from the blogger "Ranger Against War":"They are not fighting as insurgents, but rather as an integrated combat force with experience and discipline, and the ability to press a planned ground assault This was not a hasty assault. The U.S. is fighting as COIN, while they are fighting a real war." http://rangeragainstwar.blogspot.com/2009/10/dead-space.html#links
. I used to take some small measure of unjustifiable pride in the fact that, in her meteoric rise, Heidi Collins made a short layover as a TV news anchor in my little burg, Colorado Springs. But by her active participation in the intentional misinformation campaign to paint US occupation instead as, what, liberation (?,) I lose even that little bit of civic pride.
One year ago this week, in the only public debate of the campaign, the sitting Congressman from Colorado Springs told me that he was committed to "stay the course" in Iraq until we achieved military victory there. Note that this was months after President Bush had already negotiated the terms of our withdrawal. And the guy handily won reelection.
avid student of electorates willing to vote for what harms them .
"Sending another 40,000 troops into Afghanistan to shore up a Karzai government that tried to steal the election and demonstrated so little accountability that the officials who winked at the fraud are still on the electoral commission"
Could we look at it this way: No one in the U.S. would want to support Iran's current regime in the wake of it's obviously fraudulent election. So, should we be supporting the one in Afghanistan?
Since President Obama had put off making a decision on his Afghanistan policy until he saw the results of the planned November 7 runoff, Abdullah’s decision puts Washington in an awkward position. Abdullah is said to be seeking to postpone the runoff until spring, 2010, which would much extend the period of instability. In contrast, Clinton seems to be crowning Karzai the winner by virtue of Abdullah’s withdrawal. But the Karzai presidency has been badly if not unalterably wounded by the ballot fraud practiced in August, and of which the retention of the same electoral commission would guarantee a repetition.
And here is what I take away from all this. The debate in Washington has been over a counter-insurgency campaign versus a limited counter-terrorism campaign. Counter-insurgency implies a certain amount of state-building. Counter-terrorism implies that state-building is impossible or very, very difficult. Clinton backs counter-insurgency, while Vice President Joe Biden supports counter-terrorism.
The reason Clinton is so eager to insist that Karzai’s election is legitimate despite its obvious illegitimacy is that Abdullah’s withdrawal puts paid to the idea that there is a plausible Afghan government partner for US counter-insurgency. There is not.
Biden may or may not win the argument in Washington. But there is now no doubt that he should win that argument. Sending another 40,000 troops into Afghanistan to shore up a Karzai government that tried to steal the election and demonstrated so little accountability that the officials who winked at the fraud are still on the electoral commission– that is an absurd proposition.
Welcome to Informed Comment, where I do my best to provide an independent and informed perspective on Middle Eastern and American politics.
Informed Comment is made possible by your support. If you value the information and essays, I make available and write here, please take a moment to contribute what you can.
Google+
The only question remains, how much Abdullah has been paid to drop out of the race?
If all that is left in Afghanistan is a counter terrorist strategy, won't it just create two more "terrorists" for each one it kills? Isn't the realistic alternative to trying to build a viable state just to go home and admit defeat? I suppose you can dress it up to appear like "mission accomplished" if that's more palatable.
Obama and Clinton seem to be in over-their-heads trying to find a US policy for Afghanisan will work. I suspect that is because there is no such animal and the US refuses to leave South Asia with their tail tucked 'tween their legs. So this sets the stage for one blunder after another and oh so many years of endless war. A great leader knows when it is time to walk away but Mr. Obama does not seem to be one of them.
Afghanistan "Elections".
Dr Abdullah Abdullah speech.
Homey don't play no sham elections.
(neither should we)
CNN & FOX would talk over live speech.
CNN & FOX would not translate live speech.
CNN & FOX would cut to commercials during live speech.
(cnn & fox must wait for orders)
Now back to your regularly programed CNN & FOX Propaganda
You couldn't find a more dramatic representation of the difference between the two versions: CNN International and the watered-down, manufactured consent of the CNN domestic version.
It's too bad that our domestic debate is framed by the boundaries of CNN domestic version, and those of fiercer neo-conservative hawks on Fox News. Very sad.
At this point we are not fighting a "Counter Terrorism" OR a "Counter Insurgency". When they can attack a firebase and almost overrun it, we are fighting a war against an army. A non-traditionally organized army, but a serious one. Nobody is admitting that this is the reality.
This is part of a post from the blogger "Ranger Against War":"They are not fighting as insurgents, but rather as an integrated combat force with experience and discipline, and the ability to press a planned ground assault This was not a hasty assault. The U.S. is fighting as COIN, while they are fighting a real war."
http://rangeragainstwar.blogspot.com/2009/10/dead-space.html#links
.
I used to take some small measure of unjustifiable pride in the fact that, in her meteoric rise, Heidi Collins made a short layover as a TV news anchor in my little burg, Colorado Springs.
But by her active participation in the intentional misinformation campaign to paint US occupation instead as, what, liberation (?,) I lose even that little bit of civic pride.
One year ago this week, in the only public debate of the campaign, the sitting Congressman from Colorado Springs told me that he was committed to "stay the course" in Iraq until we achieved military victory there. Note that this was months after President Bush had already negotiated the terms of our withdrawal. And the guy handily won reelection.
avid student of electorates willing to vote for what harms them
.
Somehow, in my gut, I think this is relevant.
"Sending another 40,000 troops into Afghanistan to shore up a Karzai government that tried to steal the election and demonstrated so little accountability that the officials who winked at the fraud are still on the electoral commission"
Grade: A+
Could we look at it this way: No one in the U.S. would want to support Iran's current regime in the wake of it's obviously fraudulent election. So, should we be supporting the one in Afghanistan?
is this what Obama wanted?