[Peace-discuss] "Politically driven" = democracy, and we're against it

[C. G. Estabrook]

At his love-fest with the Senate armed services committee yesterday, Gen.
Petraeus said that Obama's July 2011 date to begin withdrawing US troops from
Afghanistan was "politically driven" - and therefore, he implied, could be ignored.

We should be clear what "politically driven" means: Obama in his co-option of
the anti-war movement during the election, had to appear to favor withdrawal
from Afghanistan; once elected, of course, he could reject it (as he has).

Obama & Petraeus know that a large segment of the US populace thinks that the
AfPak war is at least a mistake if not a crime. Our leaders desperately fear the
growth of that opinion.  In fact, it's about all that they do fear.

Petraeus actually revealed a bit more about the USG's real plans in the Mideast,
in order to reassure senators that he was down with the program - primarily that
its cynosure is in fact Pakistan:

"...He said a Pakistani role in any agreement with the Taliban could be
essential. But he added that the Taliban had to be 'hammered' on the battlefield
before its leaders were ready to agree acceptable peace terms, and that it was
hard to tell to what extent Pakistan’s intelligence services were supporting the
Taliban as opposed to recruiting Taliban members as sources [sic!]."

I'm sure the leaders of the Afghan resistance to invasion and occupation - and
the Pakistanis - are even now concluding that US troops have to be "hammered" on
the battlefield before Obama & Petraeus are ready to agree acceptable peace
terms. And by all accounts, that seems to be happening.

--CGE

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.