[Winstonm]

mike777, on Oct 10 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

btw did anyone notice that the Main Pakistan Army headquarters, their Pentagon, was attacked last night?

Perhaps we should stop getting Europeans killed and being blamed for it and listen to Europe, china and Russia.

"After all, Bush has given the world (including Europe) a lot of problems. Just to mention one: Europeans have died. Most likely they would still be alive if Gore had been elected."

This, of course, is the debate on foreign policy. Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has elected to follow a grand plan of intervening and helping to establish puppet governments, using our military force when needed to enforce "democracy".

The question to me is would Pakistan be so unstable if the U.S. had not invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. How much has our desire for revenge against al-Qaeda worked against us by enabling more anti-U.S. sentiment?

Why do we continue to listen to the Neocon long war hawks selling us on the idea that we can recreate the world in any image we wish if if only stay long enough and have enough resolve.

It is a Trotsky re-mix - endless revolution overseas.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Oct 10 2009, 12:49 PM, said:

mike777, on Oct 10 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

btw did anyone notice that the Main Pakistan Army headquarters, their Pentagon, was attacked last night?

Perhaps we should stop getting Europeans killed and being blamed for it and listen to Europe, china and Russia.

"After all, Bush has given the world (including Europe) a lot of problems. Just to mention one: Europeans have died. Most likely they would still be alive if Gore had been elected."

This, of course, is the debate on foreign policy. Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has elected to follow a grand plan of intervening and helping to establish puppet governments, using our military force when needed to enforce "democracy".

The question to me is would Pakistan be so unstable if the U.S. had not invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. How much has our desire for revenge against al-Qaeda worked against us by enabling more anti-U.S. sentiment?

Why do we continue to listen to the Neocon long war hawks selling us on the idea that we can recreate the world in any image we wish if if only stay long enough and have enough resolve.

It is a Trotsky re-mix - endless revolution overseas.

Not sure what you are suggesting. We should pull all our troops home and send the FBI and NYC police to Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan?


BTW have you noticed on the news lately that it is reported that agents of the Central government in the USA are spying on people inside the USA?

[awm]

The Taliban was pretty awful to its own people in Afghanistan (especially women). They were known to be sheltering Al Qaeda. They had recently been in the news for blowing up Buddhist monuments which had stood for thousands of years. When the US decided to go in to Afghanistan, there was pretty significant international support, and while the US military certainly took the lead, there were token forces from many other countries involved.

This is a pretty different situation from the one we faced in Iraq. Opinions about Afghanistan have certainly changed over the years as the war has bogged down, but at least part of the problem is that during the time period when Al Qaeda and the Taliban were basically on the run (when it might've been relatively easy to finish the job), the US was instead devoting most of its military energy to Iraq (not to mention that the Iraq operation soured most of the international community on cooperating with the US).

[mike777]

awm, on Oct 10 2009, 12:52 PM, said:

The Taliban was pretty awful to its own people in Afghanistan (especially women). They were known to be sheltering Al Qaeda. They had recently been in the news for blowing up Buddhist monuments which had stood for thousands of years. When the US decided to go in to Afghanistan, there was pretty significant international support, and while the US military certainly took the lead, there were token forces from many other countries involved.

This is a pretty different situation from the one we faced in Iraq. Opinions about Afghanistan have certainly changed over the years as the war has bogged down, but at least part of the problem is that during the time period when Al Qaeda and the Taliban were basically on the run (when it might've been relatively easy to finish the job), the US was instead devoting most of its military energy to Iraq (not to mention that the Iraq operation soured most of the international community on cooperating with the US).

I strongly disagree, it was never going to be easy to finish the job in Afghanistan, even with a million troops. This is just a myth.

Even today there are reports of only about 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. This number is in some dispute.

[Trinidad]

kenberg, on Oct 10 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

Rik,

If one wishes to blame the United States for the violence of the twentieth century it helps to have a very selective memory. Except for trying to work out how we can all do better, this "Look what the US did, no, look what Europe did, etc" doesn't play well.
[]
Moving forward, remembering but not obsessing with the past, is the way to go as far as i am concerned. I don't much believe in all tis apologizing stuff.

Ken

I think that that is exactly what the committee is doing (moving forward). Look what the US did. And look what Obama stopped doing! They didn't award the prize for the sake of pointing fingers, demanding apologies, etc. for the past. They gave it for rewarding the new path and encouragement to continue in that direction.

Rik

[Winstonm]

Quote

Not sure what you are suggesting. We should pull all our troops home and send the FBI and NYC police to Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan?

I am suggesting it is wasteful and misguided to send an Army division to Boston International to check boarding passes.

[Trinidad]

kenberg, on Oct 10 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

But if we are going to go that way, I point out that it was not the US that colonized Africa and then pulled out leaving chaos behind, it was not the US that carved up the middle east into a bunch of irrational borders after the first world war, it was not the US that imposed impossible reparations on Germany after the first world war, and the creation of Israel after the second world war was not because of all of the Jews that were gassed in the United States. That's for starters. Mistakes were made, as the expression goes. There are reasons why my father, and many others, left Europe behind.

Ken

I am fully aware of the not so pretty past of Europe. That includes the colonization of Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Australia, South and North America.

It also includes a large amount of wars fought on the European continent. However, since WWII Europe has been a relatively peaceful place. (I think the EU would be a good candidate for the Nobel peace prize, for providing peace, stability and economic prosperity to a continent that used to be war torn.) And European countries have engaged in few military conflicts with non European countries since WWII. When they did, they were usually following the USA.

Rik

[cherdanno]

PassedOut, on Oct 10 2009, 09:59 AM, said:

I'm one of those who consider it "blatantly obvious" for the US to respond militarily against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

I find this kind of statement hard to understand, and find it surprising coming from you, given that I always find your opinions reasonable (also when I disagree with them).

The 9/11 attacks were planned in ... Hamburg. The 9/11 pilots got their training in ... Florida. Did you consider it obvious to invade Germany and Florida? Whether having training camps in Afghanistan was essential for these attacks is hardly clear.

After 9/11, the things I found obvious to do were things like "try to have more Arab speakers in the CIA, in the FBI", "find out what went wrong within the intelligence community", "pressure other states into doing everything to cut off the money flow to terrorists, to strengthen their law enforcement". Launching a war
- that would certinaly cost many more lives than 9/11, and possible more American lives,
- because the government of a state sympathized with the terrorists, and hosted some of their friends
is never something I can find "blatantly obvious", even when it turns out the right thing to do.

[Winstonm]

awm, on Oct 10 2009, 12:52 PM, said:

The Taliban was pretty awful to its own people in Afghanistan (especially women). They were known to be sheltering Al Qaeda. They had recently been in the news for blowing up Buddhist monuments which had stood for thousands of years. When the US decided to go in to Afghanistan, there was pretty significant international support, and while the US military certainly took the lead, there were token forces from many other countries involved.

This is a pretty different situation from the one we faced in Iraq. Opinions about Afghanistan have certainly changed over the years as the war has bogged down, but at least part of the problem is that during the time period when Al Qaeda and the Taliban were basically on the run (when it might've been relatively easy to finish the job), the US was instead devoting most of its military energy to Iraq (not to mention that the Iraq operation soured most of the international community on cooperating with the US).

If history has taught us anything, it is that it is impossible to win a counter-insurgency war without owning the gene pool.

[Trinidad]

mike777, on Oct 10 2009, 07:27 PM, said:

I mean what do they want to do in Pakistan or Afghanistan, the war is 9 years old...what do they say?

The USA started the war in Afghanistan after they had been warned by their (European) allies that this wasn't the way to go. European countries and others (e.g. Australia) are trying to build up the country. This is not easy as long as the US is on a combat mission in Afghanistan and the local population doesn't know the difference between an American and an Australian. Obama is trying to change the USA mission there into a more humanitary direction ("Win hearts and minds").

So, in short: The USA created the mess in Afghanistan, the rest of the world is trying to sort it out and the USA hasn't been helping. Obama is trying to change this. The Europeans are saying "Hooray for Obama and for a change in US strategy."

Rik

[Trinidad]

awm, on Oct 10 2009, 07:52 PM, said:

When the US decided to go in to Afghanistan, there was pretty significant international support, and while the US military certainly took the lead, there were token forces from many other countries involved.

That is a distortion of the truth.
When the USA decided to go after international terrorism, there was much more than "pretty significant support", it was overwhelming and almost world wide. The USA threw that all away when they decided to go into Afghanistan. And at the point when the USA attacked, this world wide support had rapidly decreased to "significant".

Rik

[PassedOut]

cherdanno, on Oct 10 2009, 01:26 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Oct 10 2009, 09:59 AM, said:

I'm one of those who consider it "blatantly obvious" for the US to respond militarily against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

I find this kind of statement hard to understand, and find it surprising coming from you, given that I always find your opinions reasonable (also when I disagree with them).

The 9/11 attacks were planned in ... Hamburg. The 9/11 pilots got their training in ... Florida. Did you consider it obvious to invade Germany and Florida? Whether having training camps in Afghanistan was essential for these attacks is hardly clear.

After 9/11, the things I found obvious to do were things like "try to have more Arab speakers in the CIA, in the FBI", "find out what went wrong within the intelligence community", "pressure other states into doing everything to cut off the money flow to terrorists, to strengthen their law enforcement". Launching a war
- that would certinaly cost many more lives than 9/11, and possible more American lives,
- because the government of a state sympathized with the terrorists, and hosted some of their friends
is never something I can find "blatantly obvious", even when it turns out the right thing to do.

If, after the 9/11 attacks, the Taliban had agreed to dismantle and outlaw bin Laden's training camps and to turn over bin Laden and the other al Qaeda leaders to the US, then I would not have considered military action in Afghanistan to be blatantly obvious. But that did not happen.

In my view, the military should have concentrated on eliminating bin Laden and the al Qaeda leadership as efficiently as possible and then come home. That would have sent a concrete message to those contemplating other such attacks of what they could expect.

Because of moronic leadership, the US sent a totally message: hold out for awhile until the US gets distracted and lets you off the hook.

Now the situation is much more difficult, but I'm pleased that Obama is the one evaluating our options.

[kenberg]

Trinidad, on Oct 10 2009, 01:47 PM, said:

mike777, on Oct 10 2009, 07:27 PM, said:

I mean what do they want to do in Pakistan or Afghanistan, the war is 9 years old...what do they say?

The USA started the war in Afghanistan after they had been warned by their (European) allies that this wasn't the way to go. European countries and others (e.g. Australia) are trying to build up the country. This is not easy as long as the US is on a combat mission in Afghanistan and the local population doesn't know the difference between an American and an Australian. Obama is trying to change the USA mission there into a more humanitary direction ("Win hearts and minds").

So, in short: The USA created the mess in Afghanistan, the rest of the world is trying to sort it out and the USA hasn't been helping. Obama is trying to change this. The Europeans are saying "Hooray for Obama and for a change in US strategy."

Rik

It's not so clear to me that Obama is helping the Afghan situation, but just to be clear, you would regard it as an good act thing for the US to pull all troops out of Afghanistan, is that correct? As far as I know, Obama is planning no such thing, unless pulling out the troops and sending in drones counts. I actually have no idea what Obama is planning to do.I am not sure he knows. Sometime last spring, I think he announced a comprehensive strategy. I get the impression we won't be following it.


People speak as if Obama has been doing wonders with our standing in the world. Perhaps so. My hope is that people take a realistic view of the US. There have been times I have thought the US President can't take a crap without some European explaining that he is doing it wrong. But it is also possible to go to extremes in the other direction. If Obama is doing something wonderful i Afghanistan I am glad to hear it, I am just not sure what it is.

[hotShot]

Just out of curiosity, which American court/judge released a warrant for bin Laden?

[Winstonm]

Quote

If, after the 9/11 attacks, the Taliban had agreed to dismantle and outlaw bin Laden's training camps and to turn over bin Laden and the other al Qaeda leaders to the US, then I would not have considered military action in Afghanistan to be blatantly obvious. But that did not happen.

I don't want to seem unduly on the side of the Taliban, but at the same time accountability demands a response for the Bush team's antics.

The Bush team gave the Taliban a mandate. Turn over bin Lade or be considered an enemy. The Taliban made what seems like a reasonable request: first show us your evidence of his complicity.

Reason and the Bush team were like oil and water - so here we are 9 years later with no bin Laden in jail and mimicking the last foolish hooray of the soviets

But Dick Cheney tells us that on our deathbeds we will receive total consciousness - so we got that going for us.

[Trinidad]

kenberg, on Oct 10 2009, 09:37 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Oct 10 2009, 01:47 PM, said:

mike777, on Oct 10 2009, 07:27 PM, said:

I mean what do they want to do in Pakistan or Afghanistan, the war is 9 years old...what do they say?

The USA started the war in Afghanistan after they had been warned by their (European) allies that this wasn't the way to go. European countries and others (e.g. Australia) are trying to build up the country. This is not easy as long as the US is on a combat mission in Afghanistan and the local population doesn't know the difference between an American and an Australian. Obama is trying to change the USA mission there into a more humanitary direction ("Win hearts and minds").

So, in short: The USA created the mess in Afghanistan, the rest of the world is trying to sort it out and the USA hasn't been helping. Obama is trying to change this. The Europeans are saying "Hooray for Obama and for a change in US strategy."

Rik

It's not so clear to me that Obama is helping the Afghan situation, but just to be clear, you would regard it as an good act thing for the US to pull all troops out of Afghanistan, is that correct?

No, that is not correct. The US should pull out after they have cleaned up the mess.

kenberg, on Oct 10 2009, 09:37 PM, said:

As far as I know, Obama is planning no such thing, unless pulling out the troops and sending in drones counts. I actually have no idea what Obama is planning to do.I am not sure he knows. Sometime last spring, I think he announced a comprehensive strategy. I get the impression we won't be following it.

I also get that impression. This is why I wrote that Obama is trying to change this. I understand that the president of the USA is the most powerful man on Earth, but it doesn't make him almighty.

kenberg, on Oct 10 2009, 09:37 PM, said:

People speak as if Obama has been doing wonders with our standing in the world. Perhaps so. My hope is that people take a realistic view of the US. There have been times I have thought the US President can't take a crap without some European explaining that he is doing it wrong. But it is also possible to go to extremes in the other direction. If Obama is doing something wonderful i Afghanistan I am glad to hear it, I am just not sure what it is.

Obama has said clearly that he would change directions. He has brought a new attitude to the table, opening doors and possibilities for diplomacy. The policy has changed from "First shoot, never ask" to "Let's try if we can listen". While I think that that is a clear improvement, I also realize that it doesn't come with any guarantees that it will work.

When it comes to Obama's achievements, let's put it like this:
He ordered a new bearing and turned the rudder of the ship. He hasn't turned the ship yet. And he certainly didn't reach his new destination. But the turn on the rudder is giving hope.

Rik

[MFA]

I can fully support Rik's views in this thread.

What he is saying is quite accurately the mainstream view among "the intellectual elite" in my country (Denmark). Which I happen to agree with (on these issues).

After some thinking, I find that Obama is an excellent choice for 2009, and this is why:

Trinidad, on Oct 9 2009, 11:33 PM, said:

Ok, A European opinion.

During the 8 previous years, the language coming out of the USA was: "You're either with us or you're against us." And being against the USA had serious consequences.

The USA has antagonized a large part of the world in those years, to the extent that even Europe (one of the closest allies) was not considered loyal enough. The opinion of the international community, whether friend or foe, didn't matter. On top of that the USA policy was not backed by reason, but by emotion and by believes, rather than facts.

In those years, the USA engaged in wars with two countries, set aside international law (placing the USA above the law). The USA has threatened the stability of the world. To put it simple: The USA was the bully and our planet was the school yard.

While it is certainly true that the USA is still in Iraq and Afghanistan and Quantanamo bay is still open, Obama has achieved one thing that alone is worthy of the Nobel Peace prize: The language has changed, the USA is actively trying to set up dialogue with every part of the world and there is a willingness and ability to look at the issues from the other side. The school yard bully is changing into an adult discussion partner.

Any parent or teacher will appreciate how hard it is to turn a bully into an adult discussion partner. Obama is doing it in about a year.

Thus, the change is not in the ending of wars. It would be completely unrealistic to expect that on this short term. The change is in the unprecedented change in attitude: from aggressive to cooperative and from uncaring to taking responsibility. And frankly, if anyone would have told me in January that Obama would have achieved this change in attitude and perception in a little more than half a year, I would have told him that that would have been a completely unrealistic expectation. But Obama has done it.

Rik

[kenberg]

Europe, the US, the world. Some thoughts.


After the second world war, a large part of Europe lay in ruins. Under these circumstances, the US role was imprtant. We made some decisions that many think worked out, the Marshall Plan and the Berlin Airlift being well known examples. When I was in Greece, I heard many good things said about Harry Truman. This evolved into a superpower standoff with the eventual fadnig away of the Soviet Uniion (but Russia is of course still around).

Well, now it is different.

Just as the role of the US after the second world war was dictated by history and the circumstances of the times, so it is now but iin a very different manner. Europe is back, and it has been for quite a while. Obama certainly talks as if this is a central tenet of his presidency and I hope that it is. But it is not so simple.

Back to Afghanistan. "The US should clean up the mess" is not really a policy. We need to determine Europe's attitude toward a Taliban government in Afghanistan. Pakistan, as I understand it, regards that possibility with horror. What do Europeans think can and should be done?

Let me go back in time agan.


I was 15 when the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu. At the time, the French would have like our assistance but for various reasons we declined. Ten years later, we were in there ourselves. Now this was not very bright. We might have helped the French, we might have stayed out, but not helping the French and then going in later makes little sense. Incidentally, part of the reason we declined to help was that the French were seen as colonialists and we saw ourselves as above such things. Huh! That may have been mostly rhetoric, as President Eisenhower was greatly opposed to getting the US bogged down in a land war in Asia. It is perhaps instructive to recall that it was the Republican Eisenhower who kept us out, it was the adored JFK (I voted for him) and then LBJ (I voted for him also) who took us in. Medicare, civil rights, Viet Nam. Similarly it was the strongly nationalist De Gaulle who got the French out of Algeria. Good decisions come from where they come from.

At any rate, it is my strong opinion that if Europe is indifferent to whether the Taliban gains control in Afghanistan then the US cannot prevent it. In Iran, I think they will have their nukes regardless of what we wish and regardless of what the Europeans wish, but working together we might just maybe be able to alleviate at least a little bit some of the worst implications of that.

One reads that the intelligence communities of, say, the US and France largely ignore all of the political chatter and work together pretty effectively. I hope that is so, and I hope the governments can do better than they have. I am speaking of our government, and the European governments. There are problems that need attention.

[Gerben42]

I agree with others that Obama has really caused a change in the way the World thinks about the American government and, assuming he's going to be in power for 7 more years, can still contribute a lot to peace and prosperity in the USA and the world.

I was happily surprised about the Nobel Peace Prize but it is hard to come up with someone more deserving. Obama has done, more for world peace in 8 months than Bush in 8 years. The USA is no longer the bully that ignores human rights when it sees fit, yet imposes them on others. Gitmo is on the way of being closed, Obama has toughened its stance on Israel about the settlements and helped getting North Korea back at the table.

About Kenberg's question: In the EU, regular citizens are not that much interested in what government Afghanistan has. They do not feel that terrorism from the Middle East is as large a threat as US citizens, and if they do, it's internal terrorism, from the IRA, the ETA, or religious extremists who are living here already. Bin Laden is not interesting here, the main threat is locals who spread hatred in mosques here, and those who listen to it and believe it.

The general view is that the USA opened a can of worms in Afghanistan and now should clean up the mess. The EU would never ever start a war the way the US did. And since the US doesn't and the former US government seemed to be cherry-picking, attacking Iraq but not Myanmar, this is a easy source of criticism.

My own view is that we should determine what the Afghan people really want. They are not ready for real democracy yet, that's also the reason why strong leader figures are so popular in countries that don't really have much experience with western democracy (for example Putin). Such leadership is missing in Iraq and Afghanistan. These countries need someone of their own who steps up and shows the way out of chaos. Until the leader is found, the western powers must stay present and protect the normal people, as no one else will. I think this should be a UN mandate, not one led by one or few countries.

[hrothgar]

Gerben42, on Oct 11 2009, 03:44 PM, said:

I agree with others that Obama has really caused a change in the way the World thinks about the American government and, assuming he's going to be in power for 7 more years, can still contribute a lot to peace and prosperity in the USA and the world.

I was happily surprised about the Nobel Peace Prize but it is hard to come up with someone more deserving. Obama has done, more for world peace in 8 months than Bush in 8 years. The USA is no longer the bully that ignores human rights when it sees fit, yet imposes them on others. Gitmo is on the way of being closed, Obama has toughened its stance on Israel about the settlements and helped getting North Korea back at the table.

About Kenberg's question: In the EU, regular citizens are not that much interested in what government Afghanistan has. They do not feel that terrorism from the Middle East is as large a threat as US citizens, and if they do, it's internal terrorism, from the IRA, the ETA, or religious extremists who are living here already. Bin Laden is not interesting here, the main threat is locals who spread hatred in mosques here, and those who listen to it and believe it.

The general view is that the USA opened a can of worms in Afghanistan and now should clean up the mess. The EU would never ever start a war the way the US did. And since the US doesn't and the former US government seemed to be cherry-picking, attacking Iraq but not Myanmar, this is a easy source of criticism.

My own view is that we should determine what the Afghan people really want. They are not ready for real democracy yet, that's also the reason why strong leader figures are so popular in countries that don't really have much experience with western democracy (for example Putin). Such leadership is missing in Iraq and Afghanistan. These countries need someone of their own who steps up and shows the way out of chaos. Until the leader is found, the western powers must stay present and protect the normal people, as no one else will. I think this should be a UN mandate, not one led by one or few countries.

I don't disagree with anything that Gerben is saying; however, there are a few additional points that I think are worth making:

1. It might surprise people, but I was not opposed, in principle, to the US invasion of Afghanistan. I thought that there were some severe practical issues, especially with Bush and Cheney at the helm; however, I thought that military action was justified and could have even resulted in a positive outcome. The Taliban government was deeply unpopular. We could have won the peace. We failed to do so.

2. At this point in time, I don't think that a continued US military presence has a positive expected value. I think that we need to pull out. I hope that - eventually - some kind of nation building operation might prove to be practical.

For me, the most critical issue is the widespread economic and political corruption within the Afghan regime. I don't believe that its possible to win a battle of hearts and minds while simultaneously propping up and unpopular and corrupt regime.