<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Today's article presents a largely fantasized history of the
politics of the war - altho' it is possible to discern that the
Democrats were given control of the Congress in 2006 to end the war,
which they obviously never intended to do.<br>
<br>
But the interesting point is how the NYT sees the alternatives:<br>
<br>
"From the right, some ... may argue for staying the course in
Afghanistan, and for holding off on withdrawing American troops. <br>
<br>
"Meanwhile, from the left, some ... may push the opposite way,
arguing that the United States should abandon its troop-heavy
counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan <i>that seeks to protect
the population </i>[sic], and move instead to a counter-terrorism
strategy that <i>focuses on pounding Al Qaeda</i> and other
insurgents... [emphasis added]"<br>
<br>
If those are the "left" and "right" positions, US war-makers have
little to fear - except that two-thirds of the US populace don't
agree with the alternatives. <br>
<br>
So the task is to lull them to sleep - and not admit that AfPak is
part of the long-term US strategy for the control of energy. --CGE<br>
<br>
In 2010 Campaign, War Is Rarely Mentioned<br>
By HELENE COOPER<br>
Published: October 28, 2010<br>
<br>
WASHINGTON — The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have dominated
American foreign policy for the past nine years, but debate about
them is all but absent from this year’s midterm election
campaigns...<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/us/politics/29war.html?_r=1&nl=us&emc=politicsemailema1">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/us/politics/29war.html?_r=1&nl=us&emc=politicsemailema1</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>