OBAMA SLIPS INTO AFGHANISTAN TO VISIT US TROOPS

[OKNancy]

Source: AP

Surprise visit.

BAGRAM AIR FIELD, Afghanistan (AP) -- President Barack Obama secretly slipped into Afghanistan under the cover of darkness Sunday for a weekend visit with U.S. troops serving in the closing months of America's longest war.

Air Force One landed at Bagram Air Field, the main U.S. base in Afghanistan, after an overnight flight from Washington. Obama was scheduled to spend just a few hours on the base and had no plans to travel to Kabul, the capital, to meet with Hamid Karzai, the mercurial president who has had a tumultuous relationship with the White House.

Obama's surprise trip comes as the U.S. and NATO withdraw most of their forces ahead of a year-end deadline. Obama is seeking to keep a small number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014 to train Afghan security forces and conduct counterterrorism missions. But that plan is contingent on Karzai's successor signing a bilateral security agreement that Karzai has refused to authorize.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_OBAMA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[pinto]

1. Just heard the report on cable news feed, too.

[Sunlei]

2. Pres. O has stamina. last week Him & VP- meet/talk Global from 3am to 11pm.

Wish Congress could be made to really work hard.

[former9thward]

3. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

John Kerry concerning Vietnam. https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/johnkerrytestimony.html

I wonder if Obama is going to shake hands with the last man to die for the Afghanistan mistake...

[ConservativeDemocrat]

12. Afghanistan based Al Qae'ida attacked the U.S., and was shielded by the Taliban. Vietnam didn't.

And if we weren't there, Osama bin Laden would almost certainly still be alive.

"Peace in our time! Peace in our time!" ~ Neville Chamberlin on appeasing Hitler.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[former9thward]

13. I don't think you should claim membership in the 'Reality Based Community'.

We wiped the Taliban from power in late 2001. So Al Qaeda no longer had a compliant government to rely on and it largely left the country by the end of 2002 -- a year I was in that god forsaken country. At that point we had done what we could do and we should have left the country.

Now all these years later over 3000 have died for absolutely nothing. The Taliban is all over the country and can attack Kabul at will. The minute we leave the country the Taliban -- or some version of them -- will take over. So who do you want to be the last man to die for that mistake?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

14. You believe that if we'd left, Al Qaeda wouldn't have moved right back in?

Seriously?

What color is the sky in your world?

The total number of U.S. deaths from all sources have been 2212. Combat deaths: 2021. Not "over 3000" as you mistakenly believe. And Afghanistan recently had an election with a greater participation rate than the U.S., despite the Taliban's threats. Both remaining candidates for the second round (Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani) are considered reformers. So Afghanistan actually does now look like it's beginning to head in the right direction.

So, let's be very clear. There will be no "last man" to die for Afghanistan's recovery and movement out of the dark ages, because Afghanis will continue to volunteer for their army as the country heals, and they will occasionally be killed by forces who still seek to tear the country apart. But those forces will fail. They already are. Afghanis are fed up with war and assholes murdering in the name of religion, and as recent events have proven, the Taliban has largely lost their ability to intimidate the country.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[former9thward]

16. I count all the Coalition deaths.

Not just U.S. For you those deaths don't count. To me they do. Yes, it is over 3,000. It is 3,441 currently.

If Al Qaeda had moved back we could have used our air power if they proved a threat.

As for the rest of your post you are living in U.S. propaganda fantasy. The very opposite of 'Reality Based'.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

23. Well, if you're going to count all deaths...

...you should say so. There have been 47,246 to 61,603 deaths from all sources, including the Taliban, and the vast numbers of civilians targeted by them. They're all human beings.

Still, I'm not sure what you're saying here. You were in favor of driving OBL out into Pakistan, which only could have been done by the U.S. invading Afghanistan. So clearly you must have been in favor of the initial effort, and that must not therefore have been a "mistake".

But now you say it is?


You need to make a bit more sense of your arguments. Oh, and "propaganda" is not just "facts I don't like". Nor is it "defending a nation I dislike". For it to be "propaganda", there needs to be a specific group whose reputation is being damaged by it. Look up the dictionary definition.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[former9thward]

27. The mistake occurred when we began to nation-build.

We began to nation build at the end of 2002. That was a mistake. The Afghan people are not interested in our form of government. They never will be. Our attempts there have been a total failure. That is why the Taliban control the countryside and can hit Kabul whenever they want. The minute we leave it will collapse like a house of cards.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

41. The facts don't bear out your version of reality...

In 2005, even under Bush's nutcase rule, the United States was seen as a positive influence by 72% of Afghanis in a BBC poll. (In fact, you'll see this time and time again. The U.S. is viewed massively favorably in third world countries where terrorist groups roam. It's in Europe where anti-Americanism flourishes among people who've never been seriously threatened by it.)

Second, the fact that there remain terrorist groups does not mean that a policy has failed. It's only a failure if the group manages to intimidate and overwhelm the population to the point where they are effectively able to call the nation a safe haven, and that certainly isn't true in Afghanistan. I think we both know what their *real* safe haven is: Pakistan. But there is little we can do about that. Pakistan also sends terrorists into India - and we certainly don't call them a "failed state".

The Afghanis are having an election which seems to be a peaceful, positive, contest. It has a greater participation rate that the United States' own voter participation, so your assertion that they are "not interested in our form of government" is flat out false. (Nor, might I add, is Democracy uniquely American, but that's another thing entirely.)

Next, the reason why nation building is done is so that you don't have to do it again in a few years. And the concept of using a bombing campaign... heh... do you have any idea how much that would set off the anti-American crowd in the D.U.? And actually for good reason: bombing campaigns don't work against nations without infrastructure. Their citizens literally don't know what they're missing. (This is especially true for Afghanistan, where the joke was "You'd bomb them up into the stone age".) Nor do you know what you're hitting. Innocents, or otherwise. You have to be there to know who the thugs really are.

Admittedly, Afghanistan will never be the success that Germany or Japan were after WW2. And only part of the reason is Bush's disastrous diversion into Iraq. However we're now generally seeing some positive movement. There's actually more violence in Iraq right now with extremist Sunnis and Shiites than there is in Afghanistan.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[24601]

29. The state of rights for women matter to me - not just American women. How will the fate of Afghan

women and girls fare the moment we are gone?

Sadly, I judge you really do know their future. Our troops certainly do.

Most importantly al Qaeda, Taleban and the Haqqani network know precisely what awaits them.

It will be as if we settled the American Civil War without Lee's surrender and, after the courts ruled the military necessity of confiscating slaves no longer existed, millions were returned to bondage.

Sleep well. After all, they are not our mothers, sisters and daughters. They will be right back to nothing more than chattel property of "those people, way over there" and why bother.

I can't de-link the total deaths from the hell that will be returned to Afghan women & girls. Anyone who claims they can is in a willing suspension of disbelief.

Maybe you could do something nice for them, like send their male relatives a case of birth control pills
and demand they give their females a choice.

When that doesn't work, send a strongly-worded letter - that works every time.

But if it doesn't, you choice is to accept THEIR fate or actually do something about it.

[former9thward]

31. So how long do you propose we send people to die there?

Until there is an acknowledgement of women's rights by everyone in Afghanistan? That has not occurred in the last 1500 years. I doubt it will occur anytime soon.

Since that is the priority issue what about the fate of women in dozens of countries like Afghanistan? Why do the Afghan women get 'protection' of the U.S. but nobody else does?

Since you care about "the state of rights for women" -- as if no one else does -- what women around the world are you going to abandon to their fate?

[24601]

32. Sorry I misjudged you, but when you counted those deaths beyond those with a US flag on their

shoulder, I thought you were serious. If non-US deaths matter, why aren't those that will be left in Afghanistan as precious as our own mothers, sisters & daughters? What would you do for them? And that is the answer.

President Obama is on record, just seven months after taking the oath of office, that Afghanistan was a war of necessity. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/18/nation/na-obama-vfw18

When did the United States decide it was not necessary to win a war that was necessary to fight?

What would you not do to save 200 schoolgirls kidnaped by Boko Haram?

How appropriate to note today that since the early wars of the 20th century, the United States has saved the world from tyranny.

Do you remember when Ronald Reagan gave this speech:

"The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe - the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge—and more."

"To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny."

"To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required - not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."

Of course you don't because they are from President John F Kennedy's Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961.

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html

[former9thward]

34. You did not answer a single question I posed.

Because you can't. Obama is wrong. It is not a war of necessity. It has nothing to do with national security interests. It is a war of necessity for the MIC. Obama has been only too happy to feed them for six years.

[24601]

54. But it did - refer to post 32. I would do for them what I would have done for my mother (RIP), and

do for my wife and daughter.

To make it clearer - I would fight for them until I was no longer able to fight. I won't be allowed to rejoin since I'm 10 days from age 60, and 50% disabled from military service.

But I understand also that there are those unwilling to put themselves at risk to secure liberty for others.

[former9thward]

55. I was in Afghanistan in 2002 and Iraq in 2003, and 4.

So you can take your attempt at military service guilt and shove it.

[24601]

57. Your lack of courtesy discredits you. I was in uniform 25 years. I'll presume also that you are

not disabled. If I'm wrong on that point, thank you for your sacrifice.

And thank you for your service.

[Lurks Often]

33. Offer the women & girls green cards to come to the US

House them in barracks or dormitories and teach them English, then work on finding them jobs.

I agree that leaving them to the Taliban and other fundamentalists in the country is a horrible thing to do, but I also agree that it is time for the US to leave Afghanistan.

As for Karzai, if it where the 50's or 60's the President would probably just have Karzai assassinated. n While I am not advocating that, I sometimes wonder if Afghanistan would be better off if it did happen.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

42. It's looking up...

It is legal for women to vote in Afghanistan, and they did so in droves. This, combined with a cultural rejection of the Taliban, is slowly shifting things towards stability and at least a reasonable amount of respect.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[LeftOfWest]

52. No it isn't looking up for Women there.

What exactly are you 'Conservative' about?

Never met a 'Conservative' Democrat going into 60 years now.

Like to know. Thanks.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

61. Actually it is, relatively speaking

Self-immolation has always been exceedingly high, especially in western Afghanistan, but there are at least the beginnings of Afghan government efforts to reduce the domestic violence and forced marriages that underlie it.

No one is saying that rural Afghanistan consists of anything but a group of barbaric tribesmen who make the worse misogynist Americans look positively feminist, but compared to what it was before (and especially under the Taliban), it is better than it has been. It's headed even more in the right direction. Self-immolations are less than half what they were 10 years ago.

Insofar as not ever meeting a conservative Democrat, be aware that self-described conservatives make up more of the Democratic party than self described "strong liberals". (The largest percentage are merely "liberals".) Positions I take that are generally opposed to what most DUers believe are:
* Support for the NSA and signal intelligence programs used to root out terrorism, and also know who is innocent of it
* A general belief in the 2nd Amendment (I don't think it should apply to ex-cons or anyone with a diagnosed mental conditions, and training should be mandatory, imposed by state law)
* A disbelief in the idea that most Republican voters are actively evil
* Support for Obama's TARP, which I believe staved off a second great depression
* Support for drone use against terrorists
* Trust that if President Obama orders military action, it is truly after all other reasonable means have failed
* More supportive of the ACA's current approach rather than a leap, whole hog, into single payer (the VA shows the risks)

I am firmly in the Democratic camp, but I come from the conservative end of the Democratic party. That doesn't mean I'm a Republican by any stretch.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Ash_F]

60. Women's rights have never been the military's concern.

If it got better in some respects, it was incidental. In Iraq, it got much worse.

Starvation and displacement are two ways in which it got worse for women in both countries.

Look at how sexual assault is treated toward our female soldiers. Let the military run rampant over society and America will be a cesspit in short order like most countries where that has happened.

[DonCoquixote]

20. no

he would have been in Pakistan, that so loved ally of Bush.

I may argue with people,especially as i have no qualms about going intop Pakistan to get OBL, considering how much aid they took, knowing damned well they had him. But let's not glorify the afghan war. Mush lost him at Bora Bora and they knew it.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

22. I completely agree with you about Bush losing him at Bora Bora...

However, had we left Afghanistan, OBL would have likely moved right back in. Why wouldn't he? It's much harder to stay hidden in populous Pakistan than Afghanistan.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[DonCoquixote]

24. actually he seemed to have no trouble

especially when you consider he was in a city that was home to the topmiltary brass in the country.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

43. But at least he had to stay hidden

And not be rallying the troops.

Oh, and it's known now that the ISI had a service desk to interface with him. They were protecting him.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[nyabingi]

46. No one from Afghanistan attacked us...

...but there were most definitely American plans to attack Afghanistan after the Taliban had earlier rejected the idea of a gas pipeline through their country when they met with then-governor George W. Bush on behalf of Unocal.

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a120497texasvisit&scale=0#a120497texasvisit

What we call "al-Qa'ida" today is the proverbial monster under the bed to keep gullible Americans afraid and supportive of constant wars fought to benefit the wealthy and their corporations.

[Skittles]

17. I really, really cannot understand why we are there

WHY ARE WE STILL THERE?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

25. Because there would otherwise be a power vaccum

Which the Taliban would happily fill, bringing their own unique brand of misogyny and misery back to Afghanistan. Most Taliban are from Pakistan, and are hated by the Afghani people.

We're trying to hand the job off to them, but frankly I don't think it's really going to head in the right direction until Karzai's corrupt ass is out of there.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[nyabingi]

48. Of course the Taliban will regain power...

...they are made up of Pashtuns (the majority ethnic group in the country), they are better equipped and fighters than the people being put in the official Afghan army, and they only have to wait for the western troops to leave to finally seal the deal.

Karzai, himself a Pashtun, is more concerned with pacifying the Taliban and including them rather than continuing to fight. He knows he can't count on US troops to protect him when they leave and he is trying to save his own hide.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

50. No they won't

That's like saying because the KKK is made up of whites, they'll take over because most people in the US are still white.

Second, while the Taliban is Pashtun dominated, there are also members of the Urdo ethnicity among them. They have their own factions and infighting, and there are individual groups. They've recognized that they've lost the support of the Afghani people (including the vast majority of the Pashtun), because of their indiscriminate attacks on civilians, and are presently negotiating peace with the Afghanistan government.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2010/01/2010125185642602982.html

Note, they may not actually settle. However they wouldn't be even talking about it if they thought they were winning.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[DeSwiss]

53. Why? Making war profitable, of course.....

[center]

''The true value of a conflict is in the debt it produces -- you control the debt, you control everything''.

An economy kept afloat by mafia cash is not just the stuff of Le Carré thrillers

US/NATO protecting opium in Afghanistan

Banks kept afloat by drug money

UN official claims drugs money kept the banks afloat
[/center]

[secondwind]

4. Did he bring a plastic Thanksgiving turkey? lol nt

[Maynar]

5. No rubber turkeys here,

thankfully.

[onehandle]

6. MUSLIM SOCIALIST DICTATOR INVADES AFGHANISTAN TO DEMORALIZE TROOPS

Next up on Fox & Friends!

[SnowCritter]

56. Followed by an interview with Michelle Bachmann

where she regales the Faux watchers with how many quadrillion dollars were spent on his making the trip.

[tofuandbeer]

7. Anyone recall Bush's Thanksgiving visit with the plastic turkey?

[former9thward]

38. That story was debunked long ago.

The turkey was real.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/turkey.asp

[tofuandbeer]

39. Oh. :) Thanks.

So both turkeys were real, then.

[former9thward]

44. Something like that.

[tofuandbeer]

45. :/

[hue]

8. This will mean a lot to the troops yet stationed there!! Thanks President Obama!!

[JDPriestly]

9. I hope that Obama and the troops will remain safe.

I think we accomplished what we wanted to do in Afghanistan. We located Bin Laden and killed him in order to send a message to all who would try to organize such horrible and cowardly aggression against our country that we will follow them to the ends of the earth.

I don't think we could have entered Pakistan and gotten access to Bin Laden's home had we not gone into Afghanistan.

It is now up to the people of Afghanistan to govern themselves.

[ancianita]

10. Okay. Now that there is awesome. Some president.

[gussmith]

11. O.K. If that is the job...

but I have no problem with the president working from the White House. Do those in the armed services visited appreciate the effort? How do they view the trip?

[freshwest]

36. 'Do those in the armed services visited appreciate the effort? How do they view the trip?'

It would appear the answer to those questions is they appreciate him being there and view it positively. But I don't expect statements, as active duty soldiers don't speak politically; but those faces appear approving.

As to 'O.K. If that is the job...' I don't know which President has not visited or spoken to troops at home or abroad.

Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States is not a honorary title:

According to Article II, Section 2, Clause I of the Constitution, the President of the United States is Commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces.[40][41]

Details of what a POTUS is in charge of at the link. and it's a huge job:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief#United_States

Most people would never want the job, and it's said by some he didn't run for office with CinC as his primary goal. But you can't work an agenda domestically without being sworn into the entire job as POTUS. It's not optional.

I find your statement 'but I have no problem with the president working from the White House' puzzling.

He can't do his job as a fixture in the White House, although I'm sure military and other decisions are made there, subject to the Congress.

Some believe a President should not be involved with the military, seeing it as automatically being a warmongering stance, but he cannot escape his job description as written in the Constitution, even if he tried.

Obama travels to local, national and world events everyday as part of his job description. I don't see anything unusual here. That's just my opinion.

YMMV.

[gussmith]

37. Thank You For Your Thoughtful Response

In response to "I find your statement 'but I have no problem with the president working from the White House' puzzling". Just my opinion that we need a president to sit down with his advisors and assess the issues more. From that can come consistent policy.

Presidents travel mostly because they can. Just not necessary to the extent they do it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. What does small of troops mean though

hmmmm

[Cha]

18. Thank you, OKNancy.. President Obama speaking to the Troops.. VID & Pics..

U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan listen to President Barack Obama speak



MOre.. TOD

[freshwest]

30. Thanks for the pix and video, Cha. n/t

[penndragon69]

19. Get ready to hear the howls of outrage

from the TeaTards as they accuse him of
using the troops as a politicle prop.....just like THEY DO !

[Jesus Malverde]

21. OBAMA SIGNALS US TO KEEP LIMITED AFGHANISTAN ROLE

President Barack Obama slipped into Afghanistan for a surprise visit Sunday and made clear that the U.S. will likely maintain a limited role here even after its combat mission ends this year and America's longest war comes to a close.

"America's commitment to the people of Afghanistan will endure," he pledged.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_OBAMA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-05-25-12-05-58

[MADem]

26. No track suit and no turkey, though....!

What chutzpah, to be all business, all leadership! Doesn't he know that the successful formula is to be the dry-drunk that unthinking folks would most like to have a beer with?

[father founding]

28. No mission accomplished banners ?

Oh wait, that was the other guys !

[ucrdem]

40. K&R.

Good scoop! Heard it here first

[nyabingi]

47. Now this is interesting...

...AP reported that Obama "had no plans to travel to Kabul", yet I saw on television earlier that Karzai refused to meet with Obama (in other words, Obama was "snubbed&quot .

Perhaps Obama "slipped" into the country to try and convince Karzai to go along with US future plans for Afghanistan. I wouldn't be at all surprised if something really bad happened to Karzai at this point (e.g., deadly car wreck or Taliban attack).

[grahamhgreen]

49. Isn't that sweet. See any action?

[Ash_F]

51. Who will be the last to die?

[Jesus Malverde]

58. +1

[riqster]

59. They deserve no less. Good on him.

Anyone who doubts the bravery and sacrifice of these servicemen and women should watch "Lone Survivor". An intense flick that is brutally honest.

Bless them.