Does anyone here REALLY think it would hurt the prez's chances of re-election to leave Afghanistan?

[Ken Burch]

If so, why?

I don't know of much of anybody, anywhere, who's still a big enthusiast for that war. Especially much of anybody who isn't already committed to voting Talipublican in the fall.

[Tx4obama]

1. Pres Obama is already planning on having all the troops out by the end of 2014.

It takes time to move out all the equipment, supplies, and all troops.

So, please do not make it sound like he wants to stay there when he doesn't

[RZM]

4. Agreed. He has set a time table and presumably he will adhere to it

The Bush administration did the same thing for Iraq and Obama followed that as well.

I think many people don't realize how much military campaigns revolve around transport, supply, logistics, etc. Stuff just doesn't magically appear thousands of miles away, nor can it just be taken out overnight. It takes time to do it right and to do it safely.

That's not to say they couldn't be out before 2014, but there's also the main issue in the war, securing the government against the Taliban and not leaving utter chaos when we leave. I'm guessing they also want to use that time to build up the Afghan security services.

[Ken Burch]

10. This government can no more be secured than Thieu's regime could be in Saigon.

We do we ALWAYS ally ourselves with crooks who have no popular support?

Nothing can possibly be made better in Afghanistan by our staying for another two years. Our troops are going to keep morally declining under the strain, more and more events like this weekend's massacre will happen, and Karzai will NEVER be accepted by the Afghan people(or the groups of people who are under the umbrella category of "Afghans".

It's time to admit it's a dead loss, like we should have in Vietnam in 1968.

Once again, we're asking someone to be the last person to die for a mistake. The fact that that someone might be an openly gay or lesbian soldier doesn't make that any less insane, or any more "progressive".

Just bring them home and give them...and the peoples of Afghanistan...their lives back.

Everyone who had anything to do with 9/11 is dead or has been punished by now.

[joshcryer]

12. I think the lesson is that you can't magically impose "our" system on people.

If people are to adopt it, it has to be desired and fought for. Had we left Afghanistan and Iraq alone and just been an 'example,' the world would've been a much different place.

Turkey is a really powerful example of this, as you have to install a very hard handed junta if you want "our system" to work in authoritarian cultures.

[Ken Burch]

18. And also...when we say "impose 'OUR' system", which parts of this system do we mean?

From where I sit, it looks like we've been far more interested in imposing the Western "right" to build a pipeline through Afghan territory than we ever were in anything remotely resembling human rights or "democracy".

(Also...it always irritates me when our leaders insist on coupling "democracy" with "capitalism"...but maybe that's just me and the 99%).

[joshcryer]

19. Our system is not just democracy.

Generally we want "free trade" and for us that really means, in our globalized world, "we take all your resources." If a resource isn't being developed we want it to be developed, and we're happy with dictatorships, juntas, or democracy if that ever happens.

You can't impose a system, it has to come from within.

You might be able to lend support to those from within who are resisting if they represent a large enough number of people, but then, some people resist that form of internationalism, even though it's worked well in, say, South Sudan and the Ivory Coast (you don't even have to mention Libya).

[teddy51]

2. The bigger question is, why was that a war to begin with? And the next question is

how did Iraq come into this? Why did we not attack Saudi Arabia, as opposed to Afghanistan and Iraq? The Answers are that it was a planned attack on both of these countries to begin with. So if this was planned, was 911 planned also? Hmmm

Why was Ground Zero not proclaimed a Crime Scene from the get go? Why was criminal evidence allowed to be taken out of Ground zero prior to a full scale investigation?

[woo me with science]

3. And why are we now drumbeating on Iran and Syria?

Excellent questions. And, as I am sure you already know, the answer is:

Follow the $$$$$$$$.

[Robb]

5. Would it concern you if it would?

[Ken Burch]

8. Yes. defense of an indefensible status quo does concern me.

Basically, the only reason we're still there is that Obama let himself be convinced(or convinced himself, in that emotionally detached, slightly coldblooded way of his) that he had to keep at least one war going his entire first term just to look "tough".

It's time for this party to stop drinking the "bear any burden, fight any foe" koolaid. "Strength" doesn't have to mean constantly killing people.

I'll be voting for him...but please, stop encouraging our Democratic politicians to do the kind of thing that forces us to vote for them with gritted teeth.

[FirstLight]

6. nope, but i still think he will stay there

the MIC is running this war, i wonder how much say the Pres actually has about it all. I wish he would have pulled out of there the moment OBL was out of the picture, but that has yet to happen either.

not happy about all this war, not happy about the state of military personnel, families, the waste of money and lives and the horrific way we are handling the diplomacy... i wish he would earn that fucking Nobel Peace Prize already!

[Tx4obama]

7. I wish everyone would take time to learn exactly 'why' Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize

so that I wouldn't have to post this all the time

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Oslo, October 9, 2009

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html

Additional info below

Before the Nobel Prize:

Obama worked with "Sen. Dick Lugar, a Republican, to help lock down loose nuclear weapons."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jul/15/barack-obama/obama-lugar-measure-included-weapons-of-mass-destr/


After the Nobel Prize
Striking progress on securing nuclear materials
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/382/secure-nuclear-weapons-materials-in-four-years/

[Ken Burch]

11. So that makes staying in Afghanistan for two more pointless years OK, then?

Remember, they ONCE gave the Nobel Peace Prize to THIS guy:

[Tx4obama]

13. My comment wasn't a reply to you, it was a reply to FirstLight and what his/her last sentence said

which was, quote: " ... i wish he would earn that fucking Nobel Peace Prize already!"

[Ken Burch]

17. Fair enough...still the irony of somebody winning a Nobel Peace Prize

then keeping us in a war is pretty obvious.

[FirstLight]

21. thank you

I fail to see how the passing of that bill was so award worthy...and i personally wish they'd take it back until he leaves Afganistan, etc...

but i am just a bleeding heart peacemonger, who cares what i say?

[TheKentuckian]

14. Are they going to make Dick Lugar King of the World?

Obama was a short-timer, he worked seriously on the effort and was positioning to perhaps be a point man of the future but I see this as weak argument because it seems only weakly plausible in the context of time and elbow grease.

[joshcryer]

9. Eh, American's like targeted killing more these days (83%):

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72613.html

Same poll indicates that 93% of Democrats want Obama out of Afghanistan.

Which makes me wonder how many of those 93% are in the 83% who like the drone wars.

Weird poll.

But indicates no end in sight toward the US's targeted killing policies. We'll probably ramp it up even more.

[longship]

15. IMHO Afghanistan will play no part

The Repugnant party will still be making war on cultural issues, with the emphasis on women's uterus' (how do you pluralize uterus?)

Also, there will always be the economy, but as long as things go as they are now, that dog won't hunt. Gas prices are an issue but Obama has a simple way to alleviate that, the reserves. (And if Repugs complain, Obama can ask them, What would you do to shore up lower gasoline prices, give more tax breaks to the oil companies who have milked the US public for decades?)

[burrowowl]

16. NO!

Around 70% or so are fed up!

[karynnj]

20. If he left right now - with the massacre and the Koran burnings being the last events

it could hurt as it will be impossible to put a "good face" on it - as was done with Iraq. This is not a time where he can declare victory and leave and be believable - even though most people would love to accept that and have the war over. That though should not be the criteria for leaving.

The question though is NOT whether it will hurt politically, but whether there is any justifiable hope to accomplish anything worth the death and maiming of US soldiers. It is a version of the question that John Kerry asked in 1971. Are there things that will improve our security, the world's security or even life in Afghanistan worth those sacrifices.

One thing the Koran burnings and the massacre may have done is tipped the scale to make anything we do unlikely to succeed. I think that winning the hearts and minds of the Afghani was always unlikely, but this may have lowered the probability to near zero - if not zero itself. That leaves only the killing of terrorists as a goal - and, ignoring all questions of morality, it is not clear that can be done successfully without at least some local support.

The difficulty is that this area is a tinderbox - and Pakistan, which is incredibly unstable, has nuclear weapons. This will not be an easy decision for Obama.