Obama mourns U.S. deaths in Afghanistan; says McCain not wiser about region

"failing to meet with Gen David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq"

Why would Obama meet with Petraeus ? He's the one behind the successful surge which Obama has been against.

Obama: "On the other hand, before we went into Iraq, I knew the difference between Shia and Sunni."

On the other hand, McCain knows there's 50 states.

Is this the same Sen. Mcain who waltzed around central Baghdad wearing a bullet proofvest and helmet surrounded by 100 SWAT team members and armed helicoptors and who then told us things were going swimmingly in Iraq?

If he clearly didn't tell us the whole story then, I'm wondering what makes people like Sarge think he's going to tell us the truth now?

Good bit of cut and thrust here. Would have to give points to Sushi though at the current time. McCain's visit to the Iraqi market was a stage-managed charade, nothing more, nothing less.

In the quagmire that is Iraq, the US is faced with some very tough choices. The current administration planned a war with no consideration given to how they would win the peace. Let's face it, the "good" Iraqis who are America's allies (or lackeys) are little more than a cabal of crooked former exiles who cannot be trusted to do anything right (except line their own pockets). They have little traction with the man on the street because they "cut and ran" when Saddam was in power.

And what about this "surge." What does it actually mean? Does it mean putting more US troops on street corners to act as targets for every Ali with a gun? Indeed, is the "surge" in itself endemic of a more serious problem in US strategy, namely, the practice of coming up with nice terms to sugarcoat serious problems. Forty years ago, it was "Vietnamization" of the war (to cover up the reality of the US being beaten by a bunch of rice farmers). Earlier in the Iraq conflict "Shock and Awe" was used as a term to describe the wholesale destruction of Iraqi infrastructure. Where does it all end?

The cold reality of the situation in Iraq (as with many wars) is that a stalemate has occured. The Iraqis don't have enough power to throw out the infidel, and the US does not have the stomach to take the amount of casualties necessary to crush the opposition. At the same time, however, walking away from Iraq (like it did in Vietnam) would severely damage America's already tarnished international image. Thus, rightly or wrongly, the decisions of George Bush have locked the US into a policy of "staying the course."

So how about it? What about voting for the person who could fix this problem by addressing the hard issues, and making the hard decisions (of which some might be paramount to political suicide).

But let's go back to Afghanistan a few moments. Isn't that the place we attacked because the Taliban attacked the United States? Isn't that also the war that george bush deserted to attack Iraq; a war of choice?

And John McCain is going to keep troops in Iraq instead of sending them back into Afghanistan where they belong.

Oh, I can't wait for Lemming Day. < :-)

To add to adaydream's comment, naturally there is a lot of thought to the fact that Iraq has taken away a lot of American troops from Afghanistan. Many critics of the Iraq war point to this fact among others.

But what bothers me as an American is that there is not enough discussion about another reason why there are not enough troops in Afghanistan. That reason is that many of our NATO allies are just not doing their part for one reason or another.

Remember, unlike Iraq, the war in Afghanistan is a NATO operation. "An attack on one is an attack on all." NATO's European leadership has acknowledged that. But many European politicians outside of Britain, afraid of public opinion, refuse to act.

For example, the Americans, British, Canadians, and Dutch, fighting in the south of Afghanistan, have been begging for more than a year for the Germans, Italians, Spanish and others to both send more troops to the country and come down from the north to help them fight the Taliban.

But their political leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel refuse. Body bags coming home won't be politically popular. At the same time, I keep reading that a lot of Germans feel they owe America nothing when it comes to Afghanistan.

I am sorry, but I believe that is just wrong, legally from the point of view of the NATO Treaty and morally, in the memory of the U.S. service people who participated in the Berlin Airlift and protected Germany and Western Europe during the Cold War.

Sincerely, James Graziano La-Giglia

Well prague the reason that NATO countries do not want their soldiers dying in Afghanistan is, I believe, tied directly to their lack of confidence in the leadership of the American CinC, George W. Bush.

After 9-11 America had all the allies it needed and more. When Iraq became the focus the allies lost confidence in Bush and were not about to sacrifice blood and treasure on that misadventure. An effective leader inspires, Bush has done the opposite. It is his lack of leadership that is now putting Nato allies now in Afghanistan in peril. Why would German or any other country want to join now?

I think what Buddha is saying is that Iraq gave European leaders an excuse to ignore Afghanistan, and they're taking it for what it's worth.

Remember, unlike Iraq, the war in Afghanistan is a NATO operation. "An attack on one is an attack on all." NATO's European leadership has acknowledged that. But many European politicians outside of Britain, afraid of public opinion, refuse to act.

NATO did invoke Article 6 (?) immediately after 9/11, the only time in its history. But the US didn't want their help, we'd do it alone and their participation would just slow us down. It was only upon recognition the job would be much more difficult that Afghanistan was handed over to NATO. By that time the US was making noises about going into Iraq, a move not supported in Europe.

Even our closest allies have lost faith in American leadership. I read recently in the Toronto Globe and Mail there's some fear the role of Canadian soldiers will be to guard this proposed pipeline that will bring oil from Azerbaijan, the Caspian Sea really, through Afghanistan which will cut Iran and Russia out and reduce their power over energy resources in the region. The upswing in violence makes this unlikely since Afghanistan is not yet stable enough to build it.

If you watched Fahrenheit 9/11 it includes a visit by the then Taliban government to DC to discuss this proposed pipeline in the spring of 2001. The Taliban rep heckles the few female protestors there to denounce the treatment of women in Afghanistan.

NATO did invoke Article 6 (?) immediately after 9/11, the only time in its history. But the US didn't want their help, we'd do it alone and their participation would just slow us down. It was only upon recognition the job would be much more difficult that Afghanistan was handed over to NATO.

Total garbarge and you should be ashamed of yourself for posting it. Shame on you betzee, pass this link our NATO partner.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/casualties/list.html

Go at it alone????

Sailwind,

NATO was willing to present a unified defense, as its charter stipulates, and was turned down in the wake of 9/11. As wiki notes, "The U.S. and the UK led the aerial bombing campaign, with ground forces supplied primarily by the Afghan Northern Alliance. In 2002, American, British and Canadian infantry were committed, along with special forces from several allied nations. Later, NATO troops were added."

In all fairness to Betzee, it has been widely reported and written that after NATO invoked Article 6, the White House and Pentagon did wave off European help, fearing their participation would just slow American forces down. That thinking was a big mistake. Nine Americans just died in Afghanistan in one day after a Taliban attack on a base.

I also believe there is some truth to what Buddha4brains wrote that the Europeans just don't have any confidence in President George W. Bush as a commander-in-chief.

But these are all excuses by the Europeans. I believe the main problem is that certain countries in continental Europe such as Germany, Belgium, Spain, and Italy have no desire to shed any blood and to sacrifice for others, even in a clearly good versus evil struggle like Afghanistan. They are comfortable with their lives 63 years after World War II and want to be left alone. That's my feeling having lived in Europe for years. America is largely on its own I'm afraid.

James Graziano La-Giglia Hong Kong

Betzee,

The U.S, Britain and Canada didn't want to wait around to take action or do you believe we should have waited a year until we took em out????? Turned down hell, what is your point, we should have waited until we an total consensus before we attack??? Shame again Betzee.

The second operation is the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), established by the international community in 2002 to stabilize the country. NATO assumed control of ISAF the following year. By May 2008, ISAF had an estimated 47,000 troops from 40 countries, with NATO members providing the core of the force. The United States has approximately 17,000 troops in ISAF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_inAfghanistan(2001%E2%80%93present)

One thing I've noticed is that the worst motives are impugned to the United States even by the citizens of countries with which we are allied. Though the American people gave the Bush administration a pass when the search for WMD in Iraq turned up empty, the rest of the world did not. This is the article from the Globe and Mail I referred to above:

In the late 1990s, an American-led oil consortium held talks with the Taliban about building a pipeline from Central Asia - where oil and gas reserves are gigantic - through Afghanistan to Pakistan, from where it could be shipped westward. The talks broke down in mid-2001. Washington was furious, leading to speculation it might take out the Taliban. After 9/11, the Taliban, with good reason, were removed - and pipeline planning continued with the Karzai government. U.S. forces installed bases near Kandahar, where the pipeline was to run. A key motivation for the pipeline was to block a competing bid involving Iran, a charter member of the "axis of evil."

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher said recently that Washington has a "fundamental strategic interest" in Afghanistan that extends well beyond ensuring it is not used as a base for terrorism. In Ottawa, energy economist John Foster recently released a report on the pipeline. "Government efforts to convince Canadians to stay in Afghanistan have been enormous," he wrote, "but the impact of the proposed multibillion-dollar pipeline in areas of Afghanistan under Canadian purview has never been seriously debated."

In November of 2006, the Conservatives seemed to take a stand. At a little-noticed meeting in New Delhi, they agreed to help Kabul become an energy bridge through the building of the pipeline. With the Afghan war not going well, the likelihood is the $7.6-billion project might not proceed for a few years. Canadian soldiers could well be gone by then, though we could extend our deadline one more time. The Americans would certainly like us to help them defend the pipeline route. What should also be considered is that Afghanistan stands to reap a windfall in transit fees if the pipeline goes ahead. Such a pipeline also would help the U.S. in its energy needs - needs that its entry into Iraq's oil fields would help replenish too....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/GAM.20080703.COMARTIN03/TPStory/TPComment

Great Betzee,

Now conspiracy theory.

In the late 1990s, an American-led oil consortium held talks with the Taliban about building a pipeline from Central Asia - where oil and gas reserves are gigantic - through Afghanistan to Pakistan, from where it could be shipped westward. The talks broke down in mid-2001. Washington was furious, leading to speculation it might take out the Taliban. After 9/11

Well how about this, after billions of dollars of treasure spent on taking the Taliban how come we haven't built one inch of pipeline yet?

Guess were just waiting for the right moment.

Well how about this, after billions of dollars of treasure spent on taking the Taliban how come we haven't built one inch of pipeline yet?

That's a little like saying, "How can we be in Iraq for oil since the price of gas has doubled?" That's not evidence it wasn't part of the strategic calculation which motivated toppling Saddam's regime but could instead be evidence of just how flawed those calculations were ("we'll be greeted as liberators").

Even in the Philippines people immediately assumed the US was behind a proposed change in administrative structure in Mindanao, the Muslim part, to get at their natural resources. The fact they really don't have any was beside the point. It's a sad reflection on the lack of credibility we enjoy in the world. This is something the next administration will have to address.

Betzee, Your famous for deflection. Phillipines has nothing to do with the points I'm making nor is Iraq.

Sorry, discussion with you always ends up on the same point Bush bad, even when he was right concerning our response as a nation to 9/11 and the taking out the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

No, you use BDS to dismiss any criticism of the current administration. I included the Philippines as example of how the US is perceived by the citizens of countries which are close allies. In short, we are going to have difficulty achieving legitimate defense needs if this is the way others see us.

Sailwind - "even when [Bush] was right concerning our response as a nation to 9/11"

Excuse me? Invading Iraq was the 'right' response to 9/11, which involved 16 Saudis?

Are you serious???

Sailwind, you seem to be too busy defending the flawed response to the mess your support helped to create.

It's just about time that we ought to be hearing how the democrats have made this and the Iraq wars fiascos.

The republicans are real close to losing this presidential election and blaming the democrats seems closer day after day. < :-)

Superlib call it an excuse if you want, but you seem to take umbrage at the fact that European leaders have their own agenda and political realities that are not ties to America. Competent American leadership would have understood this and acted accordingly - Bush did not and now there is this mess.

Going into Iraq was a strategic blunder from the get-go. How in the world could Saddam pose such a military threat to the US when both the US and British air force controlled Iraqi air space and could bomb at will - and often did? To support the invasion of Iraq would have been politically foolish for most countries and they say that - even Canada with its forces in Afghanistan bulked at going into Iraq.

I understand your motivation to focus on European duplicity, but in the end Bush failed to make a credible case for invasion. Once that decision was made Bush basically made cooperation on Afghanistan that much more unlikely.