I’m curious to know what Afghanistan David Brooks visited? The deeply conservative NY Times columnist wrote about his recent trip to Afghanistan last weekend, making these sweeping generalizations that Afghans are “warm and welcoming” of our ever-increasing military presence; that the US military is “well through the screwing-up phase of our operation”; coalition forces are learning quickly; aid agencies have no chance until the military kills all the “bad guys”; Afghan leadership is improving; and that 17,000 troops indicate the US is “finally taking this war seriously.” Either Brooks spent all his time hanging out with military leaders or there’s a whole crisis he’s deliberately trying to downplay.
What war Brooks thinks we can win with 17,000 troops is anyone’s guess. As I’ve written before, most foreign policy experts agree that 17,000 troops will be insufficient to achieve stability in Afghanistan. Andrew Bacevich, for instance, said 17,000 “hardly amounts to more than a drop in the bucket.” But if Brooks disagrees with critics on the left who claim the Obama administration is simply rehashing the Iraq surge strategy, what about voices on the right like Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman, who claim the only way to bring about “success” in Afghanistan (as they define it) is through an all-out war that requires a massive, long-term military commitment?
As a point of comparison to Brooks’s limited revelations, let’s look at Director Robert Greenwald’s recent account of what’s going on in Afghanistan. Greenwald, who was in Kabul last week, said that while there’s love and respect for President Obama and the United States, nearly everyone he spoke to believes more troops aren’t the answer. The Afghan people Greenwald met–which included members of the Afghan parliament, Afghan Women’s Network, Awakened Youth of Afghanistan, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, and members of the Taliban committed to negotiating peace–want to see the Obama administration commit 17,000 teachers or 17,000 doctors, not 17,000 soldiers. Absent from Brooks’s column was Afghanistan’s humanitarian crisis; the rampant malnutrition and unemployment that can’t be solved through military means. Absent was any mention of Afghan people, women included, who are opposed to both military escalation and the Taliban. As Greenwald mentioned in his recent MSNBC appearance, the only bomb Afghans want dropped is an education bomb.
On the surface, it might appear, as Brooks suggests, that the US is taking this war seriously by committing 17,000 more troops and 4,000 trainers to build up Afghan security forces after the Bush administration left Afghanistan in the dust to pursue an unjust, unnecessary war in Iraq. But the reality is that the resurgence of militant Taliban fighters is due to the presence of more US troops. Read Gilles Doronsoro’s Carnegie Endowment article, “Focus and Exit: An Alternative Strategy for the Afghan War,” which concludes that US military presence will only perpetuate the Taliban insurgency, and the best way to weaken the Taliban is to reduce armed confrontations. Not send in a limited number of troops that will become targets for the Taliban. And definitely not wage more airstrikes, since the 522 Afghan civilian deaths the UN attributed to Western airstrikes last year are fueling Afghan animosity toward US forces and leaving Afghans with little choice but to support the Taliban.
It’s amazing to see two such intelligent Americans come away from their trips to Afghanistan with such disparate takes on the crisis. While Brooks was meeting with military leaders and counterinsurgency experts who seemed likely to tell him coalition forces are ahead of the learning curve, Greenwald was witnessing 25 members of the Taliban lay down their weapons because all they want are jobs.
What’s clear is that both Brooks and Greenwald reaffirmed their respective views from having spent time in Afghanistan. Brooks more firmly believes military escalation is the answer, while Greenwald is more convinced than ever that more troops will further destabilize both Afghanistan and Pakistan, while failing to address Afghanistan’s dire humanitarian needs. What I’d like to see is Brooks and Greenwald go head-to-head in a substantive debate on this war, share their experiences, and let us decide how we think the Obama administration and Congress should proceed.
Perhaps if you bothered to listen to Barack Obama speak on Afghanistan you would tell the truth and write that the 17,000 troops are not to engage an enemy but to train the Afgahn army and police and to help the Afghan citizens build schools, hospitals and infrastructure. And that wouldn't be the correct “framing” would it? That wouldn't help the fund raising effort would it? Why do you lie about the president?
Now go ahead and censor my comment above and prove what I said is true.
It is you “truthy” again …
I wonder how is it going to work out, sending soldiers to build civilian infrastructure?
Then, there is no need to send troops, send an construction company and you are all set to work.
I mean, you don't need a weapon to build schools, do you?
Yes you do need soldiers to build schools when you are in a lawless wasteland of a country populated by terrorists and Islamo-fascists who want to kill you. The U.S. military under Obama has shifted the emphasis of its mission to training and expanding the Afghan army and helping build schools and hospitals, etc. Hundreds more U.S. civilians will also be sent in to boost under-resourced reconstruction and development programs.
It's unconscionable for this site to lie and suggest that Obama's intent is escalation of a military action when his statements and actions say otherwise. Here are some examples.
Chief Petty Officer Michael Ploeger serving with the Combined Joint Task Force Phoenix, Training Assistance Group 6 (CJTF Phoenix, TAG VI) has continued the work started by Sgt. Don Weber to deliver school supplies to the children of Afghanistan. Spirit of America provided 2,000 school backpacks with supplies at the request of Sgt. Weber but he rotated out of the country before being able to distribute. Fortunately, CPO Ploeger was able to access and deliver the supplies during his current tour near Kabul, Afghanistan.
A Task Force consisting of Afghanistan National Army (ANA) and Coalition Soldiers joined forces to deliver the packs to the school in the village of Arzon Kimont located south of Kabul. The TAG newsletter attached includes an article on the outreach effort which describes these types of humanitarian assistance missions as an “important component of the mission…in Afghanistan as they help win the hearts and minds of the citizens and increase the public's faith and confidence in the ANA”.
Chief Petty Officer Michael Ploeger, with the Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) Phoenix Training Assistance Group (TAG) 6 Team, has just arrived in Afghanistan but already he and his team are giving out supplies contributed through your generous support of SoA's Refurbish and build schools in Afghanistan project. The 2,000 backpacks with supplies sent for Sgt. Donald Weber were waiting for CPO Ploeger upon his arrival.
Truckloads of boxes have arrived to equip the new school in Gardez, Afghanistan with the help of 1stLt Alberto Locsin who is following through with our work assisting 1stLt Roger Chen under our Refurbish and rebuild schools in Afghanistan project.
1stLt Locsin shares this message with all who contributed to this outreach to benefit the school:
The charity donation was a huge success. It was held on the 25 of March, the first day of school at Saturi. The Sub-Governor of Jani Khel/Saturi along with a security element from the Afghanistan National Army and Afghanistan National Police were there to witness Spirit of America's generosity.
The Humanitarian Aid Drop was successful in many ways; the Afghanis often associated uniforms with fear; due to donations the children will identify uniforms as something positive much like we do in the United States. The children are also given the opportunity for a better education with the much needed school supplies. The contributions allowed both the new and the old generation to experience something that was once foreign to this war torn country – generosity.
So, US first kills civilians and later gives backpacks to the orphans?
Anyway, it is just Kabul. What about the rest of the country?
US mission in Afghanistan is about to meet a bitter fruit of their COIN activity.
Each COIN has two sides.
The US DOES NOT kill civilians intentionally. They do everything possible to avoid doing so. Some civilians are killed when terrorists hide amongst civilians. That happens in war. There were lots of civilians killed in WWII as well.
The US is aiding civilians all over Afghanistan NOT just in Kabul. There are more journalists in Kabul so that gets more coverage.
So, last year, US unintentionally killed 522 civilians?
522 errors? Thay will start to shoot each other, any time soon.
LOL :))
“Some civilians are killed when terrorists hide amongst civilians”
Aha. So, if terrorist are hidden among civilians, they look like other civilians, yet US troops will fire anyway, and kill those civilians because, maybe, there might be a terrorist among them?
And that word, terrorist is misplaced. They are on their own grownd. They could be called militants, freedom fighters, insurgents but not terrorists.
You are using same propaganda aimed to scare US TV viewers.
That does not work here.
Also, we have seen Winter Soldiers Testimonials and number of video clips on YouTube where one can see US soldiers kiling civilians just because they are bored. And they are making videos during the killing.
That is a lie. The US forces are there fighting terrorists who attacked us on 9-11. 500 civilians being killed by accident is nothing compared to the thousands the Taliban killed. We are a force for good, we are bringing equality to women, building schools, etc. Our soldiers are good decent people doing a great job. They risk their lives to protect all of us.
You also lie when you say that they are on their own ground. Most of Al Qaeda are foreigners from other countries. Not that it matters. We have every right to attack a country that provided safe harbor openly to the terrorists that attacked us.
That is a lie that US soldiers kill civilians because they are bored. One or two sick people does not justify an indictment against all soldiers a country or a policy. That is an isolated instance. And you dare bring that up when the enemy saws off journalists heads? Remember Daniel Pearl? You're arguments are weak!
You shouldn't joke about that considering the amount of Canadian troops that have been wiped out by trigger happy USAF pilots on speed.
Funny they were called “The Gallant Freedom Fighters of Afghanistan” by Americans when they were fighting the Russians, who were invited in to help stablise the government. But when they fight American invaders they are “terrorists”. Some people may fall for that but not me, no thankyou… you need to be completely retarded to fall for that.
that is another thing that gets my goat… the Idolisation of the U.S military… the U.S military acts like a bunch of undiciplined arrogant racist thugs. They are known about the world from base to base as “rapists”.
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOjYteh-ZRs&eurl…
Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/ra…
Source: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl200903…
Thats just three… you guys google “American bases” and the word “rape of women”… you wont like what you see and just how much of it there is.
Its not surprising that you in America idolise the troops. Troops are men trained to kill other men, you idolise war so its only natural.
p.s I knew a lot of ex servicemen whe say that U.S troops are so undiciplined they cant even walk with their rifles pointed to the grownd.
This is what they do if you don't drink their extremist koolaid. They cannot defend their positions – so they censor. Please do not support a site that restricts someone's free speech.
Perhaps if you bothered to listen to Barack Obama speak on Afghanistan you would write that the 17,000 troops are not to engage an enemy but to train the Afgahn army and police and to help the Afghan citizens build schools, hospitals and infrastructure. But that would require you to tell the truth wouldn't it? And that wouldn't be the correct “framing” would it? That wouldn't help the fund raising effort would it?
BNF supports censorship and attacking US troops. You allow posters to denigrate US troops by calling them rapists and thugs. Here's a sample of the quote by Craig Sipple1
“That is another thing that gets my goat… the Idolisation of the U.S military… the U.S military acts like a bunch of undiciplined arrogant racist thugs. They are known about the world from base to base as “rapists”.
And you censor the comments of liberals who take issue with your ideology like me by taking down their posts. Look for a blog about this soon on another very prominent liberal site that does not censor.
Please do not support a site that restricts someone's free speech.
BNF supports censorship yet allows posters to denigrate US troops by calling them rapists and thugs. Here's a sample of the quote by Craig Sipple1
“That is another thing that gets my goat… the Idolisation of the U.S military… the U.S military acts like a bunch of undiciplined arrogant racist thugs. They are known about the world from base to base as “rapists”.
And you censor the comments of liberals who take issue with your ideology like me by taking down their posts. Look for a blog about this soon on another very prominent liberal site that does not censor.
Please do not support a site that restricts someone's free speech.
BNF supports censorship yet allows posters to denigrate US troops by calling them rapists and thugs. Here's a sample of the quote by Craig Sipple1
“That is another thing that gets my goat… the Idolisation of the U.S military… the U.S military acts like a bunch of undiciplined arrogant racist thugs. They are known about the world from base to base as “rapists”.
And you censor the comments of liberals who take issue with your ideology like me by taking down their posts. Look for a blog about this soon on another very prominent liberal site that does not censor.