U.S. Military Escalation Leads to Record Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan

[blackascoal]

As I said, the reality is that most of the anti-war movement was directed at Iraq, starting with the mass protests in 2003 and extending to organizations like IVAW. That's just a fact.

There were very few protests when Afghanistan started; quite frankly, though it was "Bush's war" at the time, I did not oppose it either. There was MUCH more justification for Afghanistan than there ever was with Iraq. Iraq was much more of a WTF kind of war.

Now, you can make a good argument against Afghanistan, particularly in hindsight, and that is probably the subject for another thread. The bottom line is that a comparison between the anti-war reaction to both wars, under Bush & under Obama, is a strawman, because it implies a hypocrisy which doesn't really exist.

I don't disagree with your assesment of the chronology of events, with some minor exceptions. But as someone who has been against ALL unnecessary war .. thus stood as stroingly against our actions in Afghanistan as I did against our actions in Iraq, my point is that Afghanistan is the exact same failures as Iraq and these failures now belong to Obama, his supporters, and the Democratic Party.

Whether they choose to acknowledge the failures and consequences at this point is as irrelevent as Bush, his supporters, or the Republican Party acknowledging the failures of Iraq until it was too late.

"As long as I am your commander-in-chief, I will only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary," Obama said, in an apparent veiled criticism of the Bush administration war in Iraq, which the president has argued was unnecessary."

The question is whether the slaughter of innocent people in Afghanistan is any more necessary than the slaughter of innocent people in Iraq. That answer is NO.

Here's the line that got me to support him for a bit ... "I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place."

Then I figured him out and jumped off that bandwagon with the quickness.

Truth is that Obama ran to the right of both Bush and Mccain in the general with regards to Afghanistan and what he would do to innocent Pakistanis.

This is no surprise, but it should be met with just as much anger and dismay about the continued killing of innocents as Iraq was met with.

 

[cawacko]

C’mon Cawacko. Throw me a bone. Give me a more difficult question to answer. This one is too easy.

Riddle me this batman….did you ever see major protests against the Afghanistan war in the last eight years?

No you didn’t. The Afghanistan war was always perceived to have an air of legitimacy and the left never mobilized against that war. In short, you didn’t see afghan war protests during the bush regime, the question is, why did you expect them to start under Obama?

The left’s pet peeve was always Bush’s Iraq War. Which was clearly illegal, lacked any moral legitimacy, and was completely unprovoked and unnecessary.

I personally think, in hindsight, that the afghan war was a terrible blunder. We ended up slaughtering too many civilians, and OBL should have been pursued through other means, like covert ops, law enforcement, and intelligence activities.

But, I think you know full well that complaining that “the left” isn’t storming the gates over Afghanistan is a phony and laughable assertion by depressed, former Bush supporters.



p.s., hey bro, hope you're back in cali.

What's up man!

I agree completely that most of the country was on board with going in to Afghanistan when we did. It was my impression that towards the end of Bush's term that some of that sentiment had started to turn among the anti-war faction as the war dragged on. Now I'm not expecting rallys like they had pre-Iraq for Aghanistan today. But unless the media has stopped covering events completely the anti-war movement has made very little noise. And no I'm not writing this in hopes of proving a 'gotcha' or 'they're hypocrites' its just my observation of what's going on.

 

[Onceler]

I don't disagree with your assesment of the chronology of events, with some minor exceptions. But as someone who has been against ALL unnecessary war .. thus stood as stroingly against our actions in Afghanistan as I did against our actions in Iraq, my point is that Afghanistan is the exact same failures as Iraq and these failures now belong to Obama, his supporters, and the Democratic Party.

Whether they choose to acknowledge the failures and consequences at this point is as irrelevent as Bush, his supporters, or the Republican Party acknowledging the failures of Iraq until it was too late.

"As long as I am your commander-in-chief, I will only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary," Obama said, in an apparent veiled criticism of the Bush administration war in Iraq, which the president has argued was unnecessary."

The question is whether the slaughter of innocent people in Afghanistan is any more necessary than the slaughter of innocent people in Iraq. That answer is NO.

Here's the line that got me to support him for a bit ... "I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place."

Then I figured him out and jumped off that bandwagon with the quickness.

Truth is that Obama ran to the right of both Bush and Mccain in the general with regards to Afghanistan and what he would do to innocent Pakistanis.

This is no surprise, but it should be met with just as much anger and dismay about the continued killing of innocents as Iraq was met with.

You have been consistent on this, and I don't really want to argue with you on it. I saw a bumper sticker once that said "I'm also against the NEXT war," and in spirit, that's how I tend to feel about war. I was one of 7% that opposed Gulf I, and I have been against almost every military action we have taken in my lifetime.

Still, I didn't oppose Afghanistan; I did see the justification there. Like others have mentioned, in hindsight, there was clearly a better way to achieve the objectives.

It also gets a lot messier for me once we actually commit forces & depose a government, and that goes for both Iraq and Afghanistan. Those actions gave America the responsibility for at least leaving behind a situation where the citizens of those countries can expect a reasonable degree of safety & protection. You can argue that our mere presense makes things worse, but like I said, it gets messier - I think there is strong debate to be had on that topic. I think we're probably closer in Iraq than in Afghanistan, but I definitely wasn't one who wanted troops pulled out immediately, even in Iraq. I just think that's irresponsible, until we can pull out knowing that we won't leave a complete vacuum that will likely be filled by the most violent, extremist elements in those countries....

 

[blackascoal]

Thanks BAC. You have given me cause to think on this more.
I agree with you on the root basics.

However how do we get out without creating a worse situation?
For me I would just say pull out now and damn all, but I know that will never happen.
And we do have some national obligation to the world to try and clean up the Bush war mess...

For me no easy answers.

A big part of the reason I do not LIKE any politicians and just view some as less destructive to America than others.

There are no easy answers .. but there is the truth of the limits of military power. We didn't learn that lesson in Vietnam, didn't learn it in Iraq. But if history writes nothing else about Afghanistan and its people, it will write they have always been good teachers of the limits of military power.

 

[blackascoal]

You have been consistent on this, and I don't really want to argue with you on it. I saw a bumper sticker once that said "I'm also against the NEXT war," and in spirit, that's how I tend to feel about war. I was one of 7% that opposed Gulf I, and I have been against almost every military action we have taken in my lifetime.

Still, I didn't oppose Afghanistan; I did see the justification there. Like others have mentioned, in hindsight, there was clearly a better way to achieve the objectives.

It also gets a lot messier for me once we actually commit forces & depose a government, and that goes for both Iraq and Afghanistan. Those actions gave America the responsibility for at least leaving behind a situation where the citizens of those countries can expect a reasonable degree of safety & protection. You can argue that our mere presense makes things worse, but like I said, it gets messier - I think there is strong debate to be had on that topic. I think we're probably closer in Iraq than in Afghanistan, but I definitely wasn't one who wanted troops pulled out immediately, even in Iraq. I just think that's irresponsible, until we can pull out knowing that we won't leave a complete vacuum that will likely be filled by the most violent, extremist elements in those countries....

I don't want to argue with you either brother. It gives me comfort knowing you are in the foxhole next to me.

As usual, you do an excellent job of explaining and rationalizing your thoughts. I appreciate your honest perspectives.

 

[blackascoal]

A J'accuse for CAP, MoveOn Afghanistan Silence

President Obama went on CBS News' "Face the Nation" Sunday to make the case for his great big war in Afghanistan.

The good news is that Obama says, "What I will not do is to simply assume that more troops always results in an improved situation."

The bad news is that Obama is dispatching more troops to a country that has never taken well to occupation.

So where is the MoveOn.org blast condemning the ramping up of an undeclared war and the president's refusal to rule out an even more dramatic expansion of that war to Pakistan? Where is the memo from the Center for American Progress outlining the case against giving the president "a blank check for endless war"?

Don't hold your breath, says John Stauber, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy and the co-author of Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq and The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies and the Mess in Iraq, two of the most scathing books on the Bush-Cheney administration and its war in Iraq.

In a no-holds-barred critique of groups that earned their reputations as critics of the rush to invade and occupy Iraq, Stauber argues that the Obama administration has effectively co-opted some of the nation's most high-profile anti-war groups.

Here's what Stauber writes in a piece titled: "How Obama Took Over the Peace Movement," which appears on the CMD website:

John Podesta's liberal think tank the Center for American Progress strongly supports Barack Obama's escalation of the US wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is best evidenced by Sustainable Security in Afghanistan, a CAP report by Lawrence J. Korb. Podesta served as the head of Obama's transition team, and CAP's support for Obama's wars is the latest step in a successful co-option of the US peace movement by Obama's political aids and the Democratic Party.

CAP and the five million member liberal lobby group MoveOn were behind Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI), a coalition that spent tens of millions of dollars using Iraq as a political bludgeon against Republican politicians, while refusing to pressure the Democratic Congress to actually cut off funding for the war. AAEI was operated by two of Barack Obama's top political aids, Steve Hildebrand and Paul Tewes, and by Brad Woodhouse of Americans United for Change and USAction.

Today Woodhouse is Obama's Director of Communications and Research for the Democratic National Committee. He controls the massive email list called Obama for America composed of the many millions of people who gave money and love to the Democratic peace candidate and might be wondering what the heck he is up to in Afghanistan and Pakistan. MoveOn built its list by organizing vigils and ads for peace and by then supporting Obama for president; today it operates as a full-time cheerleader supporting Obama's policy agenda. Some of us saw this unfolding years ago. Others are probably shocked watching their peace candidate escalating a war and sounding so much like the previous administration in his rationale for doing so.

Ouch!

Stauber's piece has circulated widely in recent days, stirring the same sort of dialogue that his previous criticisms of MoveOn inspired.

The truth is that important players in the anti-war movement are speaking out against Obama's Afghanistan buildup.

Peace Action is petitioning Congress to oppose Obama's Afghanistan plan. Peace Action executive director Kevin Martin has compared the president's moves with those of John Kennedy in Vietnam:

"It's a shame President Obama believes he can pursue the same militaristic strategy as his predecessors and produce a different result. While President Obama has made some good statements on increasing diplomacy and economic aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan, the emphasis is clearly on military operations. John F. Kennedy was in a comparable situation when he was elected. He chose to escalate then as well, and the consequences of his decision left our country mired in an unwinnable war."

The Friends Committee on National Legislation, which maintains the largest peace lobby in Washington, says that "more troops won't bring more peace in Afghanistan. Instead, the U.S. should invest in long-term diplomacy and development assistance."

United for Peace and Justice, of which both Peace Action and FCNL are member groups, is organizing coordinated local actions on April 6-9 to pressure Congress to oppose the Afghanistan escalation.

But Stauber's broad point is an important one.

There is significant discomfort with the expansion of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, and opposition has been expressed by political leaders abroad and at home (including Democrats and Republicans in Congress). This is a time when genuine anti-war groups could be expected to harness that discomfort and build a stronger movement to shift U.S. policy.

As such, it is a time of testing for organizations that came to prominence opposing not just George Bush and Dick Cheney but the wrongheaded war-making of the White House -- no matter which party happened to occupy the Oval Office. And that makes Stauber's J'accuse a particularly stinging one.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/422250/a_i_j_accuse_i_for_cap_moveon_afghanistan_silence

 

[DamnYankee]

No, it isn't a surprise, but it is the same course of needless failed war that Bush followed.

This is now Obama's needless failed war .. and it's more than a bit interesting watching all the anti-Bush war-haters run and stick their heads in the ground on this.

The don't hate war they hate Republicans. *shrug*

 

[blackascoal]

The don't hate war they hate Republicans. *shrug*

You have a valid point.