While everybody is awaiting President Obama’s Tuesday evening speech on Afghanistan strategy to be broadcast out of the United Military Academy at West Point, we are still awaiting some definition of what it is that we are trying to achieve there. To the best of our knowledge nobody has defined either the Iraqi, nor the Afghan war’s mission objectives – not Bush and not Obama.

At least, the president is reportedly going to address his planned exit strategy. That’s better than nothing, but are we waiting for a few more ministers of the Karzai government to be indicted for corruption, before we withdraw the troops which – at a cost of $1 million per year, per soldier – are propping up his regime?

The mission objectives should of course be the absolute first thing to be addressed and that’s why we have decided to re-post this article, originally published here on November 3, 2009.

Since the original article was posted there have been some overtures by the Karzai government to engage “moderate elements” of the Taliban, so we stand corrected on that point.

______________________________________________________________________________________

While the Obama administration ponders whether to send tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, as General Stanley McChrystal proposed and as everybody is trying to figure out what impact the Afghan run-off election, which has never taken place will have on the overall situation there, we still haven’t really figured out what it is that we are trying to achieve there.

“A foreign army alone cannot beat an insurgency; the insurgency in Afghanistan requires an Afghan solution,” wrote General McChrystal. In view of that probably sound assessment, why would we need an additional 40,000 U.S. troops?

Lets first of all decide what is it that we are trying to achieve in Afghanistan. Is it hunting down the remains of al-Qaida and maybe finally catching up with Osama bin-Laden? Or maybe something that sells in Washington, DC, but it doesn’t sell in Afghanistan – a stable Karzai government? Or maybe we are trying to defeat the resurgent Taliban? Or are we trying to transform the Afghan society? Are we including Pakistan in our grand plan?

Speaking of the Taliban, we haven’t heard any proposals to include this group in possible talks about forming a coalition government. No doubt that this omission is a really big mistake.

As things stand, eight years into an occupation of Afghanistan even the military are saying that we have not achieved anything, but that the situation on the ground has in fact deteriorated. What in fact appears to be the main problem is not the remains of al-Qaida, or the Taliban itself, or even the rampant corruption among the ruling clique, but rather the militarization of the Afghan conflict.

The military “solution” is obviously not working in an environment as complex as the one in Afghanistan and Pakistan for that matter.

One cannot expect the average U.S. serviceman to understand the very complicated tribal, ethnic, or language problems of the country he, or she has been shipped to.

The actual solution to the problem staring us in the eye appears to be getting the foreigners out of Afghanistan, rather than increasing their number.

When in 2001-2003 troops were truly needed in Afghanistan, they got diverted to the insane invasion and occupation of Iraq.

To make a long story short: we don’t even know what problem, or problems that we are trying to solve in Afghanistan are and we are still talking about changing our military strategy and increasing the number of troops. What are those troops supposed to do there? What do we expect from them? What is their mission? Nobody seems to have an answer to any of these questions.

Our advice to the White House team is to first come up with a mission statement, to nail down what it is that we are trying to achieve in Afghanistan and whether getting involved in that country is really in the U.S., or the world’s interest.

Throwing more troops into the Afghan quagmire, without even having a clear objective is clearly not the way to proceed.

Technorati Tags: Afghan, al-qaida, election, mission, obama, objectives, Pakistan, politics, Taliban, war

As the 2008 presidential election campaign winds down, with still quite a few million voters undecided (Bill Maher simply calls them retarded), we wonder what could possibly cause otherwise seemingly intelligent people to still not be able to make up their minds, particularly in view of the almost total and all-encompassing disaster of the past eight years.

The main culprit here (as in 2004) appears to be ignorance. Not necessarily stupidity – as defined by a low Intelligence Quotient (IQ), but ignorance, caused by lack of information, education and by allowing oneself to be brainwashed by demagogues. As it turns out, some 23 percent of Texans still believe that Obama is a Muslim, that his administration would usher the ravages of communism upon the United States and so forth.

The disgusting robo calls from the Republican campaign, which have been inundating our home mention a variety of warnings, accusations and promises. Prominent among them are artificially created concepts, such as “partial birth abortion”, “war on terror’ and also supposedly scary warnings against gay marriage, Muslims and all kinds of boogie men, such as al-Qaida’s Osama bin-Laden and other characters with facial hair, fortunately not including that white-bearded favorite and supposed inhabitant of the North Pole – Santa Claus.

We are not sure what position Santa is taking during this election, but it is highly doubtful that he would want to endorse anyone who has hugged Bush 43 in the recent past.

What is certain is that the al-Qaida does endorse McCain. They have stated so publicly on their official website and the story has been run by all of the world’s media not too long ago.

In other words: If you are an al-Qaida supporter – and we definitely are not – vote for the candidate, endorsed by your peers. Otherwise, open your eyes, read, learn and VOTE!

Technorati Tags: 2008, anyone, be, Biden, bush, election, mccain, obama, palin, presidential, undecided, whould, why

This year’s presidential election won’t only be getting unprecedented coverage from U.S. networks – news organizations from around the globe will be covering the Obama-McCain showdown on November 4 in ways they’ve never done before. As usual, this will be mainly a television event, but don’t discount the radio and Internet coverage – all will be beefed up to a degree never before seen.

New York’s Rockefeller Center has been awash with patriotism lately, and full of artifacts, news crews, and multimedia presentations. NBC Universal (Center’s most famous tenant) and Tishman Speyer Properties (its owner) remade into a so-called Democracy Plaza, which combines a public civic lesson and a home base for NBC’s various news outlets.

On the Rockefeller Center’s ice rink a map of the United States used in NBC’s election night broadcast has been drawn. As each state is called, the state’s color is supposed to change from clear to red or blue as a piece of fabric is placed within the state’s borders on the rink and sprayed with water to freeze it to the ice. A camera that can zip up to 60 miles per hour on a cable between the ninth floor of 30 Rockefeller Center and Saks Fifth Avenue provides a bird’s-eye view.

Kind of cute, but gimmicky. Personally, we think that more effort should be spent on assuring that people can vote, that the lines in the polling places are not miles long, that the voting machines work and – remembering the previous two U.S. presidential elections – that there is no election fraud, electronic, or otherwise.

Technorati Tags: 2008, coverage, election, gimmicky, presidential, television, tv, unprecedented

This comes as no surprise, but it appears that al-Qaida wants John McCain to be elected president of the United States. Remember when Osama bin-Laden broadcast a video just days before the 2004 election, in which he addressed the American people directly? His pitch seemed to have worked, as voters scared of another terrorist attack voted for George W. Bush once again, seemingly forgetting that the 9/11 attacks happened on his watch.

Now, less than two weeks before the next presidential election the Associated Press reports that al-Qaida supporters would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to help promote a McCain presidency.

The al-Hesbah Web site sported a message saying that if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, an “impetuous” Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war ’till the last American soldier,” the message said. “Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush.”

Neither the AP, nor us are suggesting that McCain’s campaign has actively lobbied al-Qaida for support, but the simple fact that Osama bin-Laden and his boys want us to vote for McCain should be enough reason to vote for his opponent. We do hope that all of you super-patriotic ultra-conservatives out there are listening. Hello!!!

Considering the sizeable lead that Barack Obama has in the polls and his advantage in terms of campaign funds, the McCain campaign appears to be ready to sign a pact with the devil in order to win. The Russian mission to the United Nations has released a copy of a September 29, 2008 solicitation addressed to Vitaly I. Churkin, Russia’s ambassador to the U.N., urging him to contribute as much as $5,000 to “stop the Obama Democrats from seizing control of the entire federal government.”

First bin-Laden, now Putin, who’s going to be next, we wonder…

Technorati Tags: al-qaida, backs, bin laden, bush, election, mccain, presidential, republicans

The latest, desperate slogan of the McCain-Palin campaign is now “I’m angry”.

We wonder if they are angry at being behind in the polls, or angry because McCain’s campaign is run largely by established lobbyists, or maybe something else…

Sarah Palin has said: “There is anger about the dealings of insider lobbyists, anger about the greed of Wall Street, and there’s anger about the arrogance of the Washington elite, and there is anger about voter fraud.” John McCain in turn has stated that: “You’re angry and I’m angry too.”

Let’s pick these statements apart a little bit. The Washington Post reported not that long ago that: “… when McCain huddled with his closest advisers at his rustic Arizona cabin last weekend to map out his presidential campaign, virtually every one was part of the Washington lobbying culture he has long decried. His campaign manager, Rick Davis, co-founded a lobbying firm whose clients have included Verizon and SBC Telecommunications. His chief political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., is chairman of one of Washington’s lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates, which has represented AT&T, Alcoa, JPMorgan and U.S. Airways. Senior advisers Steve Schmidt and Mark McKinnon work for firms that have lobbied for Land O’ Lakes, UST Public Affairs, Dell and Fannie Mae.”

So, what’s with this fake outrage against lobbyists? I suppose that the American people do indeed have the right to be very, very angry, but those two? How about McCain’s totally unacceptable stance on the Iraq war and his support of that monumental screw-up over the years? If that isn’t enough to get anybody in his right mind angry, what is? His constant insistence about his “correct” decision to support the “surge”, which according to him, actually worked? He doesn’t even mention the real cause of the abating of the level of fighting in Iraq, namely the fact that the U.S. military and starting a few weeks ago, the Iraqi military have been bribing the Sunnis, organized in the so-called “Awakening Councils”.

Quite simply, the bribes and not the “surge” was the method that actually worked, by stopping – at least for the time being – the estimated 70,000, to 100,000 Sunnis from mounting attacks on the occupying coalition forces and on the ruling Shi’ite government.

McCain’s claim to fame as the key supporter of the “surge” has worn about as thin now, as Rudy Giuliani’s claim to being “the hero of 9/11″. The “maverick” claim is also pretty worn, considering his whole-hearted support of the Bush administration policies and his deep involvement with lobbyists.

It is not surprising then that the Republicans are now forced to fight even for many of the red states, on which in the past they could reliably count, without spending very much time, money and effort during election campaigns.

This all goes to show how sick the American voters have become of the all-encompassing fiasco of the last eight years. Even many dyed-in-the-wool primitives are ready to give the McCain-Palin ticket the finger, and against their most deeply ingrained racist makeup, might be ready to vote for “that one” instead.

Technorati Tags: election, mccain, palin, presidential, rut, sour, stuck