White House: Leaving Afghanistan not an option

[bigtree]

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Monday that Obama is not considering leaving the eroding war in Afghanistan. Obama is undertaking a thorough review of the U.S. policy in the war that is about to enter its ninth year.

Gibbs said it is clear that the United States cannot simply withdraw. The debate over whether to send as many as 40,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan is a major element of a strategy overhaul that senior administration policy advisers will consider this week as they gather for top-level meetings on the evolving direction of the war.

http://m.usatoday.com/804459/news

[Barack_America]

1. How is it "clear" we cannot withdraw?

:shrug:

[derby378]

3. Pakistan has nukes

The Taliban is regaining strength even as we speak. If they become strong enough to wrestle nukes from Pakistan (which is where the Taliban comes from in the first place), they might turn around and use those nukes on Kashmir. Or Israel. Or maybe even us.

What they're doing to women and young girls in Afghanistan is bad enough. These guys are every bit the time bomb that Bush and Cheney only pretended Saddam Hussein was. They're tough, they're ruthless, they're very good at moving in the shadows, and they'll never compromise or negotiate. We can't let them go unchecked.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. "Falling dominoes" again? EEEKK!!

The next thing is the Taliban storming the beaches of Long Island with their unstoppable navy.

[bertman]

18. Unstoppable NUCLEAR navy.

[Barack_America]

6. How is it clear that our presence there will prevent that?

That is my real question.

[bigtree]

9. The question for me

. . . is whether our amassed and offensive forces are actually 'checking' the violent resistance (which is the only Taliban which is at issue in Afghanistan. All of the generals agree that any 'al-Qaeda' combatants have long ago been driven across the border into Pakistan. There still exists the equation where our very presence and activity is providing a target and opportunity for violence and is continuing to 'fuel and foster' even more violent resistance to our opportunistic military assaults.)

Besides, look at the hundreds of thousands of inhabitants killed under our watch and supposed protection in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's hard to argue that we're any good at all of that. We don't militarily occupy Pakistan, yet most responsible observers in and out of the country agree that there isn't any credible threat that the Taliban or any other radical group has any chance of taking over their nuclear weapons or their government. The best the U.S. can argue is that they are still bent on avenging 9-11 in some fashion - either posturing or picking fights with anyone who takes on the moniker of al-Qaeda. It's clear, though, that our grudge match against the fugitive terrorist suspects and their supporters is not going to be in the best interest of any stability or security for Afghanistan Pakistan, or Iraq. We can pretend, though . . .

[derby378]

10. Understood - this is not an easy issue

Afghanistan is known as the "grave of empires," and I think the Taliban is hoping that our nation will be the next name on the tombstone. But whereas Saddam Hussein was never an actual threat to America or her interests, the Taliban may well be.

But then there's Hamid Karzai, oil executive and current President of Afghanistan, who sided with Bush because of the promise of a pipeline to the Persian Gulf that would make him rich. He is able to maintain order in Kabul, last I heard, but that's about it. And I could argue that Bush dropped the ball in Afghanistan by sending our troops into an illegal occupation of Iraq, which means that we're still cleaning up Bush's mess in that part of the world.

[Flaneur]

12. Why does anyone buy this canard that the Taliban can take Pakistan?

Your second paragraph is pure warmongering hyperbole. Yes, the Taliban are horrid on women's rights, but so is the sitting government in Kabul, and so is Afghan society in general. The Taliban are arguably worse, but it's a matter of degree, not magnitude.

Yes, the Taliban are tough fighters, but they do negotiate and compromise all the time. And what are their goals? I don't think they include world domination--more like getting the foreign invaders out of their country.

It is time to let the Afghans settle their own problems. We have no business occupying backwards countries on the other side of the planet for specious reasons.

[derby378]

14. Your post doesn't make sense

You want the Afghans to solve their own problems. As alluded to earlier, the Taliban came out of the Pashtun region of Pakistan, and just because they might have picked up some Afghanis loyal to their cause (as well as one very deluded John Walker Lindh) doesn't change the fact that these guys are foreign invaders. They've invaded Afghanistan. If we leave them alone, they'll get even stronger and raise hell all over the Persian Gulf.

Lest we forget, the Taliban don't need to take all of Pakistan. Just one nuke. That would change the game right then and there, especially if they decide to settle an old score by launching it at someone.

[bertman]

20. " . . . by launching it at someone." Do you really think even the Pakistanis would let them

get away with that shit?? They would blow them off the face of the earth before they'd let them run around with a nuclear missile. A nuclear missile is not an easy thing to get in one's backpack, derby378.

Are you working for Dick Cheney? Your arguments sound just like the Saddam--Madman--attack America--Nuclear weapons--Bullshit we heard from him.

[derby378]

32. Oh, please...

While I'll grant you that the possiblity of the Taliban comandeering a nuke is fairly remote at present, over time I still give them more of a chance to do so than, say, one of the more militant Klans seizing a nuke on US soil.

[Obamanaut]

29. This sounds a lot like "we're fighting them there so we don't have

to fight them here."

When one says "we can't..." and then the group turns around, too often the "we" does not include the speaker.

I think the US should abandon them to their own devices, stop giving them US bodies to shoot at, and don't send them any more money to misappropriate. And for goodness sake, no more weapons of any sort.

[derby378]

38. If Bush had simply finished the job on the Taliban...

...I would not hesitate in agreeing with you. The only thing is, Bush screwed it up by shoving our military into Iraq, and now the Taliban have regained their strength and threaten the whole of Afghanistan.

Personally, I'd love to see America send Bush and Cheney to Kabul to clean up the mess they made, but Obama's not going to do that. Afghanistan is his war now.

[ShortnFiery]

2. OMG! Let's remind these *Masters of War* that Armageddon is not an exit strategy?!?

:grr:

"... the United States cannot simply withdraw." YES. WE. CAN.

[timeforpeace]

4. It's his war. Maybe he likes having his own war. He won after all.

[Forkboy]

7. The Soviet Union said the same thing.

[Obamanaut]

23. And the French and US said something similar about Viet Nam.

That didn't turn out all that great, as I recall.

I don't think it's one moment too soon to pack up the surviving troops and bring them home. Let all the -stan countries have at it with one another, but without US bodies or dollars.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. "Bring it on!", "Smoke 'em out!" Same message, different boss. Still bullshit.

[datasuspect]

16. not one bush regime program rescinded, revoked, or rejected

what's the big difference again? messianic salesmen evoke such fine sentiments. but you can't eat sentiments.

[Obamanaut]

25. I am so looking forward to the change I can believe in. Any change

will do.

[Vidar]

11. The only thing Obama forgot was to say, "I am the Decider."

[Cha]

19. No, PO didn't forget..he's not your fucking bush..

I don't care how many times your faction tries to smear.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[armyowalgreens]

27. People don't have to smear to make Obama look bad.

[Cha]

28. Yes, they do..that's all they do is

smear and don't ever recognize the good he's done.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cha]

33. I didn't say I was talking about you..

I'm talking about the ones who are forever smearing President Obam and fucking nothing is ever good enough that he does.

But, you got call me a liar.

[armyowalgreens]

34. How is that in any way relevant to this thread?

"'I'm talking about the ones who are forever smearing President Obam and fucking nothing is ever good enough that he does."


Are you just so angry that you cannot let serious dissent get by? Why don't you go back and look at your posts in here and explain to me why you even bothered posting in the first place?

"But, you got call me a liar."

I've got to admit, I'm a bit suspicious of your intentions.

[Cha]

35. You just stay "suspicious" ..I really don't give

a rat's ass.

[armyowalgreens]

36. Okay.

[dysfunctional press]

41. "public option didn't forget"..??? huh?

:shrug:

[AllentownJake]

13. 8 years

We've been there longer than the Soviets.

[shadowknows69]

26. I guess that's how we know we're winning

:eyes:

[Nederland]

15. With regard to foreign policy, (D) == (R)

Seriously, there wasn't even much of a difference during the campaign. With regard to Iraq, Obama said he'd abide by whatever SOFA the Bush administration negotiated. With regard to Afghanistan, Obama often came across as more hawkish than McCain.

[Enrique]

17. ok, we can't "simply withdraw"

what about having some kind of plan for withdrawing sometime in the future?

[shadowknows69]

21. Then me voting for anyone but an anti-war primary challenger in 2012 is not an option

[kenny blankenship]

22. We have a new war Preznit.

Awesome.

[TicketyBoo]

30. Rather pisses me off.

What the hell happens if we leave? Not much. Leave. Let them come back in and THEN go back in and get 'em. PLEASE!!

Either that or give McCrystal the troops he says he needs. (Yuck, yuck, pooey! More fodder for the killing machine that is Afghanistan.)

What other "option" can the President be considering?

Obama may be smart, but he certainly isn't quick. There is a time limit in this chess game, Sir!

[bigtree]

37. .

[mdmc]

39. God Bless George Bush

the man really should use how to stay the course!

[spanone]

40. yes it is, they just don't know it.

[zorahopkins]

42. I Trust President Obama

I ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY trust President Obama to do the right thing on Afghanistan.

President Obama inherited this war from the illegal, immoral, and totally corrupt Bush/Cheney regime of thugs and cronies. THEY launched this war not for America's best interests, but so that their cronies (Haliburton, Blackwater) could enjoy HUGE PROFITS from it.

Bush/Cheney completely neglected our brave women and men that THEY had sent into harm's way. Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rummy had NO strategy and NO exit plan. They wanted War for War's Sake. They were war-mongers and war criminals (and for that, they should be triedm convicted, and jailed!)

In November, 2008, the people of the United States came to their senses and elected Barack Obama to lead us to a NEW ERA of PEACE, prosperity, gender equality, justice, and love.

And President Obama has NOT disappointed us. He has led us away from those eight long dreary years of national nightmare. We are not yet to the New Era, but we ARE on the right path.

I TRUST our brave, hopeful, beloved President to do the right thing in Afghanistan.

I know he will.