We're Just Not Going to Call it War Anymore

BAGRAM AIR BASE, Afghanistan — President Barack Obama said Wednesday a “time of war” was ending in a moment of American renewal, on a secret trip to Afghanistan a year after ordering the death of Osama bin Laden.

A time of war is ending in about another half decade or so.

As Close As We'll Get to a True Admission on Iraq

Notice in the is report that House Republican Mike Rogers (R-MI) uses 2009 as a start date in Afghanistan not  to complain about the war's length, but instead to use the 3-year time period as an argument that we haven't waged Glorious War quite long enough.

That we really didn't start doing anything in Afghanistan until 2009 is ironic in many ways.  Prior to President Obama's refocused efforts onto the people responsible for 9/11, over 900 military personnel were killed fighting there.  That's quite a statement in the overall story of just how irresponsible the Bush administration was at waging the war on terror, and just how greatly Obama's change in that war has led to many successes such as killing bin Laden.  Rogers' statement, though, is about as close as we'll get to Republicans admitting Bush royally screwed us with Iraq.

One Step Closer to Ending Bush's Endless War Program

I've been critical of President Obama's foreign policy almost from the get-go.  I wanted him to end the war in Iraq the day after his inauguration.  The war is a disastrous foreign policy blunder left over from the previous administration and it needed to end as soon as possible.  I also wanted him to end the war in Afghanistan.  It too was a disaster foreign policy blunder left over from the previous administration.  I saw no reason to continue our hapless efforts.  The president instead escalated the war in Afghanistan, killed bin Laden and has had huge success at tracking down and defeating al Qaeda.  He brought the fight to those responsible for 9/11 and he has succeeded.

This doesn't mean my criticism has been misplaced.  I still think the best thing would have been to end both wars two years ago, bring our troops home, save hundreds of billions and start focusing on restoring America.  I don't regret my stance at all.

Today, though, it appears that finally President Obama is bringing an end to Bush's Endless War program.  By the end of the month there will be just a few hundred troops left in that country.  We'll still be spending lots of money in foreign aid, but not near as much as we are right now nor did when we were merely managing chaos in that country.  So despite my two yeas of critical attitudes toward Obama's foreign policy, I am glad to see that finally Iraq will be over.  The war in Afghanistan is in much better shape than when Obama took over in January of 2009.  The president deserves credit for ending Iraq, refocusing our efforts on bin Laden, killing bin Laden, and making Afghanistan front and center on the war for those responsible for 9/11.

GOP: Muslims Are Way More Important Than Americans

GOP Presidential Candidate Rick Perry's dedication to our Muslim brothers: We have to stay in Afghanistan in order to “continue to help them build the infrastructure that they need, whether it’s schools for young women like yourself, or otherwise.”

For our hard working American tax payers?  We can't afford to spend money on our infrastructure or schools.  It's wasteful, misguided and a mistake.

George Bush policies don't work.  Our tax money for our country!

More Evidence of Cheney's "Sound Policy"

The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan found at least $60 billion was lost because waste and fraud from poor planning, ineffective oversight of contractors and payments to warlords and insurgents.  Yet more proof of what Dick Cheney and the Bushies call "Sound Policy."

Hold Him Accountable

Think Progress makes an excellent point that President Obama will have more troops in Afghanistan at the end of his first term than when he first entered office. All this despite his troop reduction plan too. Hold him to the fire on this one. It's really past time we come home and focus on America. You know, do the things the president said on the campaign trail.

Obama and Afghanistan

I was supportive of removing all American troops from Afghanistan before Obama took office. I didn't think there was anything else we could accomplish. Bush had let it rot. Since that time, war president Barack Obama has killed Osama bin Laden-- the person responsible for 9/11, the reason for invading in the first place-- killed  Ilyas Kashmiri, the military brain of al Qaeda, and ordered a surge of troops to further secure the war zone and defeat the Taliban.

I don't believe I was wrong to oppose Obama's 2009 surge to send more troops.  He obviously knew more than I did and he obviously did exactly what he said he was going to do.  Had the president not refocused our efforts on the people who attacked us in 2001, there's no way we would have had the huge victories we've seen these last two months.  No way at all.

With tonight's apparent announcement that we are still going to have some 70,000 U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan at the end of 2012, I gotta admit I still think it's the wrong decision.  I don't see any reason to still be there.  And I certainly can't comprehend spending hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars to fight Bush's war for one more day.

But that's just it.  The reason why President Obama has to keep troops there, has to keep spending huge amounts of money is because he is still cleaning up Bush's mess.  President Obama didn't inherit a simple situation in Afghanistan.  Heck he didn't inherit anything good at all from Bush's presidency.  The very reason why we still have to keep fighting and having our own troops killed in Afghanistan isn't because Barack Obama became president one day and decided it was time to fight a war.  It was because George Bush and the Republican Party failed miserably at waging war and securing America.  

How President Bush executed the war in Afghanistan was pitiful to say the least and criminal to be blunt.  What he gave to his successor was two endless wars and an economy on the verge of collapse.  No elected president has ever inherited such a disastrous situation. Complain all we want that we are still there and might be there for a few more years.  Just realize, however, this is something that should have been taken care of a long time ago.

Just like with the economy, President Obama still has to clean up the disaster Bush left for him in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Complain all you want, but what have you done for the war effort?

More Obama Era Terrorism Victories

"(CNN) -- The man described by counterterrorism officials as al Qaeda's "military brain," Ilyas Kashmiri, was killed in a drone strike Friday night in Pakistan, a spokesman for his group, the jihadist Harakat-ul-Jihad-Islami, said."

I was against President Obama's surge in Afghanistan.  I thought we had screwed up all we could screw up in that country.  8 years of war led by George Bush had taken its toll.  It was a complete lost cause. It's amazing what competent leadership can do, however.

Interesting to note, however, is how quickly Republicans are turning against their endless wars.  Victories like the one above bring out more and more Republicans to either insanely try to give the credit to George Bush or to start speaking out against killing people in yet another Muslim country.  Barack Obama said he would take the fight to Pakistan if need be.  He would do it to fight the organization actually responsible for 9/11.  And that's exactly what he's doing.

Do I support the growing war?  No, I still think it's time to end it. But like it or not, the president is doing exactly what he said he would and exactly what Bush should have done a long, long time ago. Credit the man for at least doing what he said.  And there's no doubt he's waged a much more compelling and successful strategy against al Qeada than the Bushies could have ever dreamed of.  Again, it's amazing what competent leadership can accomplish.

It Worked and They Laughed

There's a lot of information out there about the death of bin Laden. Things seem to be changing rapidly. Not only about the events of the raid but also of the events leading up to May 1. So it's important to keep noting just how wrong it was for the United States to turn its attention away from killing bin Laden in the first place.

There's no doubt in my mind the death of bin Laden could have happened years ago had we not invaded Iraq. Doing so swept vital resources away from a just war in Afghanistan where the hunt for the person responsible for 9/11 had barely begun.  For no reason at all, the  Bush administration wanted to invade from the beginning.  This fixation on Iraq led America down a course of irresponsibility, lies, and a full scale war with a country that had absolutely nothing to do with September 11th.  Republicans chose Iraq over killing bin Laden.

After half a decade of war in Iraq, thousands of dead American troops, hundreds of billions of dollars, what did Republicans do in 2008 when a freshman U.S. Senator from Illinois said he would go after the person responsible for 9/11 no matter where he was hiding?  They laughed.

By the time Obama had taken office in 2009, George Bush had dismantled the CIA bin Laden unit four years prior.  Emphatically, by 2009 the effort to find bin Laden was negligent and had taken a back seat to a war of choice led by madmen whose power thrived from keeping America in a state of panic and fear.

These are important facts to note when we talk today about how the Obama administration was able to track down and kill Osama bin Laden.  There was an intelligence apparatus in place, no doubt about it.  And I don't want that to sound inconsequential.  But the administration that revamped the back-burner war in Afghanistan, personally ordered the CIA to find bin Laden, increased the amount of drone missions in two years than the previous 9 combined, and directed America's military focus back to the person responsible for 9/11 was the administration of Barack Obama.  And it worked.

Bush and McCain Said They Wouldn't Pursue Bin Laden in Pakistan

Since neither Bush nor McCain caught or killed Osama bin Laden, all we can go by is their rhetoric. And both said they WOULD NOT pursue Bin Laden into Pakistan even if we had intelligence telling us he was there.

Here's Bush in 2006:

BUSH: We are, Richard. Thank you. Thanks for asking the question. They were asking me about somebody's report, well, Special Forces here — Pakistan — if he is in Pakistan, as this person thought he might be, who is asking the question — Pakistan is a sovereign nation. In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we've got to be invited by the government of Pakistan.

Here's McCain in 2008 while running to replace President Bush:

Larry King: "If you were president and knew that bin Laden was in Pakistan, you know where, would you have U.S. forces go in after him?"

McCain: "Larry, I'm not going to go there and here's why: because Pakistan is a sovereign nation."

As you'll recall, Obama's campaign comments in 2008 that he would go into Pakistan to capture or kill the person responsible for 9/11 was thought of as completely crazy by Republicans.  Just to refresh, here's what Republicans thought about a plan that would pursue Bin Laden in Pakistan.  Hannity called it "frightening."  Rove chalked it up to Obama's inexperience.  Limbaugh even said it would royally screw Musharraf who he believed was a great ally despite the fact he had been hiding Bin Laden in his country.  O'Reilly said Obama's comments were not worthy.

In their world, Iraq was the war they wanted.  Afghanistan and pursuing the people responsible for 9/11 was a distraction.  A presidential policy that focused on tracking down Bin Laden no matter where he might be was laughable to Republicans.  Of course they aren't laughing now.  They are wanting credit for it.

GOPer: You Must Earn Our Freedom Bombs

It's nothing new to hear Republicans calling for more endless war. Sen. Lindsey Graham calling for the American military to be in Afghanistan permanently but only if Afghanistan earns it, is new and psychotic.

Via NBC's Meet the Press:

[...]

And if the Afghan people want this relationship, they're going to have to earn it. But I hope they will seek a relationship with the United States of where we can have an enduring relationship, economic and militarily and politically.

And a couple of air bases in Afghanistan will give us an edge militarily, give the Afghan security forces an edge militarily, to ensure that country never goes back into the hands of the Taliban , which would be a stabilizing event throughout the whole region. That has to be earned by the Afghan people, and it has to be requested by them.

Only if the Afghan people are lucky enough to have our Liberty Presence forever will we then be able to judge the true success of the Bush Doctrine of Forever War.

Endangering Our Troops

The WSJ reports that Gen. Petraeus blasts right wing Christian wackos that want to have a Koran burning day as endangering our troops and the overall war effort. Strong words from America's most famous and celebrated general.

Had this been said about Michael Moore or Howard Dean there would have been mass media hysteria trying to point out just how anti-American liberals are.  But for George Bush voting right wingers, it's a totally different standard.

9 Years of War for This?

Sanam Gul, also known as Sanam Bibi Sanubar, 35, was accused by the Taliban of becoming pregnant as a result of adultery by having "illicit affairs," and they summarily executed her with 3 shots to the head and chest after whipping her with 200 lashes.

Nothing another 100,000 troops and a trillion dollars can't fix.

Priority Is Not America

With news out this morning that our economy shrank 2.6% in 2009, our decision to spend another $37 billion over the next 9 months on Iraq and Afghanistan is resoundingly stupid.  Consider the following.

The $37 billion:

• Is completely unfunded

• Would pay off all state deficits

• Is twice the cost of a Jobs Bill bogged down in the senate because of GOP obstruction

• Is more expensive than the unemployment extension the GOP filibustered twice because they claimed it added to the deficit

• Is three times the amount that will be spent on HCR next year; legislation Republicans opposed on claims of its price tag

It goes without mentioning, too, the roads, schools and high tech infrastructure that could be built or initiated (all of which would create much needed jobs) with the money Congress and the president want to spend over the next few months waging war and killing people.

Even though many Democrats opposed the spending bill (war bill), it still easily passed.  There really wasn't any concern that it wouldn't pass.  But a bill that would spend $37 billion here at home????  That would require months of debate, fending off calls of socialism and tyrannical takeovers, being mocked as a sissy liberal, told that you aren't a Serious person because you support an item that is unfunded and adds to the deficit.  And most of all, a constant defense against the bill not containing tax cuts.

Spreading our wealth to Iraq and Afghanistan is easier and more Patriotic than keeping it here and making our country a better place.  This is our current discourse, priority and direction in America.  Nothing has changed since 2001.

The War Logs

I've spent some time reading through the Times' jaw dropping expose on the Wikileaks document dump and I wanted to make a few comments before I read any other commentary on the matter.  And before I clogged my brain with internet chatter from the pundits.

The documents provide an insurmountable amount of information.  They are the paper trail of war and its vast complexities.  A war that has gone on far longer than necessary. Judging from what I've read, everything contained in them is exactly why voters wanted a completely different direction in Afghanistan when they elected Obama as president.  Yet everything we've seen so far from the new administration has been a carbon copy of his predecessor.

People know that Pakistan is covering for al Qaeda.  We know this.  We knew this long before the leak.  People also know that there is nothing to win in Afghanistan.  It's a zero sum game.  We can't possibly kill enough people to change things.  Nor can we continue to expect that eventually hearts and minds will succumb by killing fathers and sons.  As these documents prove, we end up killing daughters and mothers along the way breeding hatred even deeper.

We wanted something different.  By different we meant better.  And what we have right now is the same sorry continuation of the policies that created this sprawling war in the first place.

Enter Petraeus

I'm not sure I still understand what Gen. McChrystal's motivation was when talking to an investigative journalist from Rolling Stone-- a magazine that has a lengthy history of printing everything.  Maybe he wasn't thinking and that was ultimately the problem.  Or maybe he just wanted to appear cool and hip in a rock n roll sort of way.  None of it really matters at this point since he's long gone.

Reading some background on the hours until the general met his fate is quite a fascinating read for a boring political guy like me.

The press secretary, Robert Gibbs, walked a copy of it  [the article] to the president in the private quarters. After scanning the first few paragraphs — a sarcastic, profanity-laced description of General McChrystal’s disgust at having to dine with a French minister to brief him about the war — Mr. Obama had read enough, a senior administration official said. He ordered his political and national security aides to convene immediately in the Oval Office.

It was already clear then, this official said, that General McChrystal might not survive. Mr. Obama was leaning toward dismissing him, another administration official said, though he said the president was willing to wait until the general explained his actions, and those of his aides.

The Times goes on to say the president consulted with retired general Colin Powell, amongst many others, before ultimately making his decision to remove McChrystal.  It seems though the president's mind was made up but he wanted to hear other input before making his final decision.  It also seems the general did not make any attempt to lobby for his job.  He apologized and then offered his resignation.  The president accepted.

And then, finally, the president ended General McChrystal’s command in a meeting that lasted only 20 minutes. According to one aide, the general apologized, offered his resignation and did not lobby for his job.

 And that's the way it had to be.

The Corner: Military Dissent In Private Only

Shockingly, one of the best opines on the McChrystal story comes from right wing, George Bush-loving National Review's The Corner.  Military historian, and last time I checked, Democrat, Victor Davis Hanson writes McChrystal goofed up big time and that if the General can't handle a liberal rag like Rolling Stone then he shouldn't be trusted to handle the Taliban.  True Dr. Hanson stops short from calling for McChrystal to be fired.  Only by a couple inches, however.

Then of course Hanson has to follow up his well written rebuke with a total fluff job update that makes no sense at all.

And when we factor in the mistake of setting deadlines for withdrawal, the failure to inspire our European allies to stay (they see us planning to leave), the growing mutual incrimination with the Karzai government, and popular rumbling about the restrictive rules of engagement, the Afghanistan theater is in real trouble. And this is the so-called good war that Bush ignored to fight the “bad” one in Iraq, where things are relatively quiet and a constitutional government, for all its problems, is now is in its seventh year of governance.

I understand Professor Hanson is a Bush-enabler and thinks the war in Iraq was and is admirable.  All wars where you get to sit in your comfy armchair and soak up the AC and write about Great Patriotic War is inspiringly admirable.  I understand that totally.  Inferring Iraq is a model for U.S. interventionism and calling it "relatively quiet" is ludicrous.

In the last week alone, over 100 innocent people have been blown up in the streets of Iraq.  Two people were blown to smithereens just this morning in Baghdad and 27 YESTERDAY!  When Hanson says Iraq is "relatively quiet" he means American deaths are down.  Despite Hanson's inhumane view of war and cracked view of quietness, Iraq is a ruined country still very much at war.  Keeping a full day of electricity supplied to its most populous areas is impossible for this "constitutional government."  If hundreds of people being blown up every week is quiet, then I would really hate to see Iraq when it's stirred up.

The mindless point Dr. Hanson is trying to make with his update to what might have been a thoughtful post is that everything Bush was in charge of is now doing great.  While everything Obama is now doing has turned to crap.  If we ignore the daily bombings, the no electricity, no running water, the poverty rate, the fact that we are still spending billions of dollars a month in Iraq rebuilding it, that its parliament has not met since March and focus squarely on the one factor that American deaths are way down, then yes Iraq is a constitutional government that is quiet.

Dance With the One That Brought Ya

The top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has been called back to Washington today to meet with his superior, President Obama.

McChrystal is quoted in a Rolling Stone article saying some not so very nice things about the president and his staff.  That's a big no no when you work for the guy.

*Update:

Reading through excerpts of the Rolling Stone article, it strikes me as a bunch of anonymous quotes that really aren't all that out of the ordinary.  I'll agree Gen. McChrystal created an atmosphere that openly allowed insubordinate language; however, that happens every day.  To think for one second that in 2004 or whenever, Gen. Sanchez didn't call the Bushies everything in the book would be foolish.

What I get from the article is a general that wants to win.  He wants to fight his war.  Apparently the White House is letting him do that.  To the extent he wants?  Maybe not.  The endless continuation of this war is what we all should be focused on.  Instead we will be bombarded by immature "bite me" lines.  How about we stop for two seconds and ask ourselves what in the world do we intend to accomplish with a slog that is as unproductive as it is unnecessary.

Just like everybody else, the military hates being told what to do by Washington.  In the end, they moan, gripe, complain and whine but do what they are told.  General Patton would have laughed this meager Stone article all the way to Berlin.  The bad part with Afghanistan is there is no enemy capitol to race toward.  We are just driving in circles killing people and spending money.

Johnny Come Lately

After supporting 8 years of endless war that has cost this country the lives of over 5,500 military men and women, and well over a trillion dollars of tax payer money, Sen. John Thune (R-ND) says his party is beginning to want the war's supplemental spending bills paid for.

“I think that the problem, again, is all the other things that get added on to these war supplementals, and the fact that it's not paid for. There are -- Republicans are increasingly, I think, dug in on the issue of making sure that new spending is offset,”

Offset? Why now? Oh yeah, it's because Republicans are no longer in power and want to pretend that they are fiscal conservatives. Could you imagine if any American had wanted Bush's spending bills to be paid for what Republicans would have called them?  No I can't either.

Mr. Grayson, Our Longest War is Still a War

If I were a Congressman I would be much like Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL).  I think our personalities are very similar.  I would come up with wild names for bills and crazy slogans just like he does. His latest, The War is Making You Poor Act, HR 5353, is straight from my own playbook.  Except I might title it, The War is Making You Poor and Republicans Rich Act.  Nonetheless, he has to be my closest comparison.

But even I have to make a distinction when it's necessary.  Grayson's June 6th blog post for Huffington Post is absolutely right.  We are doing exactly what bin Laden wants us to do with our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Grayson is dead on when he says Bush was bin Laden's best ally-- that bin Laden is co-creditor of our foreign policy is, I think, how Grayson puts it.  I couldn't agree more.  Bin Laden played George W. Bush right into his hands.  Essentially, not that it's hard to do, the world's number one terrorist outsmarted Bush & Co.  Bin Laden bogged us down in two very costly wars and is bleeding our country and economy penny by penny and troop by troop.  It's exactly what he wanted; exactly what he said he would do and exactly what he did to defeat the last Super Power he fought.

Neither history nor fault stop there and this is where Grayson omits some very important information.  President Obama is doing the same exact thing.  He has ordered a surge in the war in Afghanistan and expanded it with more drone attacks in Pakistan and Syria.  In addition, our withdrawal from Iraq, of which we are still a long way from, is probably not going to happen on schedule.  Both wars are still very much ongoing.

Plus, it's only fair to mention the Iraq withdrawal plan is a carry-over from the Bush administration.  They do deserve some credit for at least realizing the war had to end sometime.  True enough it was the Obama administration that implemented it and made it official; and true enough the Bush administration constantly referred to time-lines as "defeat" and nonetheless did the opposite of their rhetoric.  But oh well.  I personally see very little difference between the Bush approach that bin Laden helped orchestrate and the Obama approach that continues us on a war path for what is only slightly less than infinity.