Black People Politics : Why is president pushing the Neocon senseless war???

Discussion in 'Black People Politics' started by Putney Swope, Sep 16, 2009.

  1. Putney Swope

    Putney Swope Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    139
    Ratings:
    +139
    Most Democrats are against the Bush Cheney, oil pipeline and drug colonization of Afghanistan, and most Americans are against it so who is the president pushing this war for?


    Published on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 by Inter Press Service
    Obama Confronts Democratic Skepticism
    by Jim Lobe

    WASHINGTON - Growing skepticism among key Democratic lawmakers about the U.S. commitment to the war in Afghanistan is certain to pose one of the most difficult political challenges faced by President Barack Obama in his first year in office.

    Soldiers from the US coalition forces patrol through the streets of Kabul on September 3, 2009. (AFP/File/Shah Marai)With the military apparently preparing to press for a significant increase in the number of U.S. troops deployed to combat an increasingly effective Taliban insurgency, Obama, who recently called the conflict a "war of necessity", will soon be forced to decide whether to grant the request at the risk of alienating many in his own party.

    His decision will likely not be made any easier by enthusiastic Republican backing for the military's anticipated recommendations. Neo-conservatives and other hawks have been arguing for weeks that anything less than "victory" in Afghanistan may well have catastrophic consequences for U.S. national security not only in Afghanistan, but Pakistan and beyond.

    "We are confident that not only is (the war) winnable, but that we have no choice," wrote Republican Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the hawkish independent Democrat Joseph Lieberman in the Wall Street Journal Monday.

    "We must prevail in Afghanistan," they went on, insisting that preventing a Taliban takeover "remains a clear, vital national interest of the United States".

    Their column was entitled "Only Decisive Force Can Prevail in Afghanistan."

    The increasingly polarized debate was on display Tuesday during the reconfirmation hearings of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, who told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Washington will likely have to send more troops to Afghanistan if its new counterinsurgency strategy led by Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal was to have any hope for success.

    "A properly resourced counterinsurgency probably means more forces, and, without question, more time and more commitment to the protection of the Afghan people and to the development of good governance," he said, although he declined to cite the number of additional troops he intends to request.

    McCain quickly agreed. "We will need more U.S. combat forces in Afghanistan, not less or the same amount we have today," he asserted, arguing that, much like the so-called "Surge" in Iraq, more U.S. troops were needed to hold off the insurgents until the indigenous forces could carry the burden.

    But Sen. Carl Levin, the committee chairman, insisted that Washington and its NATO allies should first accelerate the training and equipping of Afghan forces before additional U.S. troops should be sent to the theater.

    Such an effort, said Levin, who returned from a visit to Afghanistan just last week, "would demonstrate our commitment to the success of the mission that is in our national security interest, while avoiding the risks associated with a larger U.S. footprint".

    "(T)hese steps should be urgently implemented before we consider a further increase in U.S. ground combat troops, beyond what is already planned to be deployed by the end of the year," he said.

    Shortly after taking office, Obama, who had argued during his presidential campaign that the administration of his predecessor, George W. Bush, had made a major strategic mistake by diverting resources from Afghanistan to Iraq after the Taliban's ouster in late 2001, authorized the deployment of 17,500 more U.S. combat troops and 4,000 trainers to Afghanistan.

    That deployment is expected to be completed by the end of this month this fall, bringing the total number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to some 68,000. Some 39,000 NATO forces are also deployed there.

    full article;
    http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/09/16-0
     
  2. bigtown

    bigtown Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    31
    Ratings:
    +31
    Repeat after me, REPUBLICANS, NEOCONS, DEMOCRATS, AND LIBERALS ARE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM!!!
     
  3. Putney Swope

    Putney Swope Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    139
    Ratings:
    +139
    correction, liberals are the ones protesting the war, neoliberals and neocons are the same

    Trilaterals, and CFR
     
Loading...