Lovely…
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in a rare joint interview, said Monday that the United States is committed to a regional strategy to build long-standing relations with Afghanistan and Pakistan.
(…)
The Taliban insurgency currently has the momentum in Afghanistan, Gates said, adding that a Taliban takeover of the country would empower the al Qaeda terrorist network.
“Because of our inability and the inability, frankly, of our allies to put enough troops in Afghanistan, the Taliban do have the momentum right now,” he told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour and former CNN Washington Bureau Chief Frank Sesno in the panel discussion that included Clinton.
Bear in mind over 100 Canadians have died in Afghanistan, because Bush took the American army into Iraq… and the American army needed help in Afghanistan.
Hum… memo to Sarah Palin: if you will try to quote a General, try to get his name right:
The new top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said yesterday that more U.S. troops are urgently required to combat a worsening insurgency, but he stated emphatically that no Iraq-style “surge” of forces will end the conflict there.
“Afghanistan is not Iraq,” said Gen. David McKiernan, who led ground forces during the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and took over four months ago as head of the NATO-led coalition in Afghanistan.
The Republicans: the party of war, lies and blood.
From Peter Bergen:
Lost in this discussion [of the surge] was the fact that while the surge of some 30,000 American soldiers certainly put more American boots on the ground in neighborhoods from Anbar province to Baghdad to “clear, hold and build” them and was clearly an important element in the sharp decline in violence in the country, there are several other key underlying factors that tamped down the mayhem in Iraq that neither of the candidates addressed:
• First, the appearance in 2006 of the various “Awakening” movements, in which Sunni tribes once allied with al Qaeda turned against it.
• Second, the implementation of the Sons of Iraq program consisting of some 100,000 Sunni militants, many of whom used to be shooting at American soldiers, who are now on the U.S. payroll. Now that’s a surge!
• Third, the previous ethnic cleansings in Iraq and the millions of Iraqi refugees who have fled their homes, meaning there are fewer potential targets of sectarian violence.
• Fourth, the large size and increasing efficacy of the Iraqi army and police, some 550,000 strong, who are now beginning to operate with some level of professionalism.
• Fifth, the increasingly nonsectarian approach of Nuri al-Maliki, the Shia prime minister, who has taken on Shiite militias in Basra and Sadr City, an important signal that the government will act in something like the national interest.
• Sixth, the cease-fires ordered in the past year or so by the leader of those Shia militants, the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose position in Iraq has weakened significantly since 2007.
These underlying factors made the surge a force multiplier for the fragile peace we are seeing today in Iraq.
And now that the surge is over, it is those factors that might ensure that the fragile peace holds, yet neither Obama nor McCain discussed how these factors might change their own Iraq policies going forward.
A missed opportunity in the debate was also to hear from each candidate some specifics about his plans for the size of the future U.S. military presence in Iraq.
McCain, who once famously said that the United States could be in Iraq for a century if American troops weren’t being injured or killed there, never explained in the debate how he plans to ramp up significantly the number of American soldiers in Afghanistan — something he has promised to do, at the same time that he continues to favor a continuing substantial U.S. presence in Iraq.
As Obama noted during the debate, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, has said that given the present commitments in Iraq, it is just not possible to now send thousands more American soldiers to Afghanistan.
For his part, Obama was not asked about the specifics of his plan to withdraw from Iraq in 2010 yet at the same time maintain what he has frequently termed a “residual force” there that would handle key missions such as counterterrorism.
According to military officials I have spoken to, such a residual force tasked with counterterrorism, intelligence gathering on the ground, providing tactical support to Iraqi military operations and protecting U.S. facilities such as the largest American embassy in the world would consist of four to eight brigades.
Depending on the exact size of those brigades, that could mean up to 40,000 American soldiers based in Iraq for many years to come. For obvious reasons Obama has never spelled out what he estimates his residual force in Iraq would look like, as to do so would alienate the liberal, Moveon.org wing of his party, which is laboring under the delusion that come 2010, if Obama is in the White House, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq.
Obama was on firm ground when he attributed the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan to the diversion of American resources to Iraq. This is uncontroversial.
The initial U.S. deployment to Afghanistan was the smallest peacekeeping force, per capita, that America has sent anywhere since World War II, while a RAND study found that, “Afghanistan has received the least amount of resources out of any major American-led nation-building operation over the last 60 years.”
And today, there are four times more U.S. soldiers in Iraq than in Afghanistan, a country that is significantly larger in terms of both size and population.
via CNN.
From The Nation:
Myth 1. It’s a dangerous world. We face an array of serious national security threats that require an experienced Commander in Chief.
Myth 2. The surge has worked. To withdraw from Iraq now would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and embolden Islamic extremists.
Myth 3. We cannot allow Afghanistan to become a safe haven for terrorists. We therefore must redouble our military efforts there or face another terrorist attack.
Myth 4. Iran is responsible for much of the violence against US forces in Iraq; by using its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza, it threatens to dominate the Middle East.
Myth 5. To talk to the leaders of “rogue” states like Iran and Cuba without conditions legitimizes their position and weakens American leverage.
Myth 6. Vladimir Putin’s Russia is an authoritarian state pursuing an anti-American agenda aimed at reconstituting the Soviet Union in the form of a new Russian empire.
Myth 7. Because the American military is stretched thin by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must increase the size of our conventional armed forces.
Myth 8. A League of Democracies would create a global coalition for peace and freedom and would enable the United States and its democratic allies to intervene to solve humanitarian and other crises when the UN Security Council is paralyzed.
Myth 9. Globalization has strengthened the economy, and we cannot avoid it by hiding behind protectionist walls.
Myth 10. The world needs American leadership.
Interesting myths, no? To find out more about why they are myths, click and read The Nation:
As a Canadian, I can say this without sounding non-patriotic, so here goes:
John McCain has used his military experience to advance his career.
John McCain has also used his military experience to blanket himself from any criticism…
You would think, however, that the military would be supporting him, and not Barack Obama, right? Look at the following stat on how military donations for Obama FAR outweigh those for McCain:
Here’s a simple fact: McCain does not represent the military, much the same way he does not represent most Americans (and Sarah Palin sure has hell does not represent women). McCain and Palin represent the most extreme right of Americans, those who want:
- Religion meddling in the State’s affairs
- War after war
Don’t take it from me, see the video here:
Since 2002, Canada has lost 96 soldiers in Afghanistan. Three died earlier this week; Cpl. Andrew Grenon, 23, Cpl. Mike Seggie, 21, and Pte. Chad Horn, 21.
According to the Canadian Press:
The following poem, entitled “Why We Fight,” was written in Afghanistan in 2006 by Cpl. Andrew Grenon of Windsor, Ont., one of three Canadian soldiers who died Wednesday in an ambush in the volatile Zhari district. It was released Thursday by members of Grenon’s family.
Why We Fight
I’ve often asked myself why we are here. Why my government actually agreed to send troops to this God-forsaken place. There are no natural resources. No oil, gold, or silver. Just people.
People who have been at war for the last 40 plus years. People who want nothing more than their children to be safe. People who will do anything for money; even give their own life.
I look into the eyes of these people. I see hate, destruction and depression. I see love, warmth, kindness and appreciation.
Why do we fight? For in this country, there are monsters. Monsters we could easily fight on a different battlefield, at a different time. Monsters that could easily take the fight to us.
Surrounding these mud walls and huts is a country in turmoil. A country that is unable to rebuild itself. A country that cannot guarantee a bright future for its youth.
Why do we fight? Because, if we don’t fight today, on THIS battlefield, then our children will be forced to face these monsters on our own battlefield.
I fight because I’m a soldier.
I fight because I’m ordered.
I fight, so my children won’t have to.
“Pray for our military. He [Palin’s son] is going to be deployed in September to Iraq – pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right for this country – that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that’s what he have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that it is God’s plan.”
PLAY
