[Peace-discuss] Is the Pentagon Deliberately "Degrading" Afghanistan's Capacity for Peace?

[E. Wayne Johnson]

Come home, America.  Just come home.

"mei di guo zhu yi gun hui jia"

[Interventionist Yankee Imperialists roll (yer asses) back home.]

The US doesn't need to be facilitating anything except an apology from
its people for allowing a handful of evil elite criminals to commandeer 
the formerly great
economy and use it to control the world under the ruse of democracy and 
good-doing.

Perhaps the American people could deliver up the (appropriately ID'ed)
charred bones of Obama, the Bushes, the Clintons, Karl Rove, Cheney,
and their ruling class buddies and the criminals who empowered them,
for the rest of the world to Piss on.

That's a political "solution" we could all applaud.

Sort of a traveling "road show" sponsored by Lipton.  The "Tea Potty".

"I peed in Hillary's eye-socket, Mommie".
"That's very nice, son.  Good aiming.  Let's go home now."

The water-ers of Babylon.

It will be a whole lot simpler if the American people do the 
slaughtering and charring than it
will be to have some foreign interventionalists come and do it in the 
name of
the "stabilization of the former American Union", and the common good.



On 10/29/2010 5:12 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>> "...we cannot simply withdraw troops in a precipitous manner without risking
>> further destabilization of this already fragile and war-torn region. We need
>> to facilitate a political solution to the stabilization of Afghanistan and
>> the defeat of terrorists in the region"
>>      
>
> I also find this irritating, maybe not for exactly the same reason as Carl.
>
> This part I strongly agree with:
>
> "We need to facilitate a political solution to the stabilization of Afghanistan"
>
> But this is awful: "defeat of terrorists in the region"
>
> This sounds like a War on Terror to me. We don't need to "defeat
> terrorists in the region" and we can't do it even if we want to.
>
> We need to facilitate a political solution so that a huge chunk of
> people who are now using methods that we call "terrorism" to achieve
> otherwise legitimate political aims - e.g., the removal of foreign
> troops from their country - will no longer have any reason to do so.
>
> Furthermore, this part drives me up the wall:
>
> "we cannot simply withdraw troops in a precipitous manner"
>
> Who in God's name is calling for "withdrawing troops in a precipitous
> manner"? This is a strawman. A peace deal will have a timetable for
> the withdrawal of foreign troops. Even the plan put forward by the
> Hezb-e Islami, which they claimed they had Taliban support for, called
> for a 2 year timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops.
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:55 PM, C. G. Estabrook<galliher at illinois.edu>  wrote:
>    
>> The goal of US policy surely seems to be, as you suggest, "to facilitate a
>> long-term US military presence in Afghanistan."
>>
>> Despite Obama's lies about "stopping terrorism" - manifestly false (US
>> war-making in AfPak increases terrorism), and an expedient he's driven to by
>> his Constitutional situation at home - the USG wants the war as part of its
>> generation-long policy of controlling Mideast energy resources.
>>
>> The danger is, as you point out, that  "a feasible peace deal almost
>> certainly implies a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces."
>>
>> But a recognition of what the US is actually doing in AfPak and the region
>> would prevent any credence being lent to fatuities like the following from
>> the local Democratic candidate for Congress:
>>
>> "...we cannot simply withdraw troops in a precipitous manner without risking
>> further destabilization of this already fragile and war-torn region. We need
>> to facilitate a political solution to the stabilization of Afghanistan and
>> the defeat of terrorists in the region"
>>
>> <http://www.gill2010.com/issues/foreign-policy/afghanistan/>.  --CGE
>>
>>
>> On 10/28/10 11:24 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>>      
>>> The Washington Post reports that *according to the US government's
>>> own assessment*, military escalation has failed in Afghanistan. Yet,
>>> the same report tells us that no change is expected in December when
>>> the policy is reviewed. How could this be? One explanation would be
>>> that the policy is failing according to the Pentagon's *stated*
>>> objectives, but succeeding according to the Pentagon's *unstated*
>>> objectives. The escalation has failed to degrade the Taliban
>>> *militarily*, but is apparently succeeding in degrading the Taliban
>>> *politically*: mid-level commanders and footsoldiers the Pentagon is
>>> killing are being replaced by younger recruits who are more militant
>>> and independent, thus degrading the ability of the Taliban leadership
>>> to negotiate a peace deal and enforce the deal on its troops. If the
>>> Pentagon's goal were to end the war, this would be dangerously
>>> counterproductive; but if the Pentagon's goal is to facilitate a
>>> long-term US military presence in Afghanistan, this could be useful,
>>> since a peace deal would almost certainly imply a timetable for US
>>> military withdrawal.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/is-the-pentagon-deliberat_b_775353.html
>>>        
>
>
>
>    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20101029/7b266425/attachment.html>