U.S. Role In Afghanistan
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-05-02/us-role-afghanistan
In a speech from Kabul last night President Obama pledged not to keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan a single day longer than necessary, but he vowed, “to finish the job”. To date more than 1,800 members of the U.S. military have died following the U.S. invasion in late 2001. In a risky night time raid in Pakistan one year ago Osama bin Laden was killed. Ending bin Laden's ability to lead a global terrorist network was the initial rationale for sending troops into Afghanistan. Please join us to talk about new questions about the U.S. exit from Afghanistan
Guests
Michael Hirsh
chief correspondent, National Journal magazine; author of "Capital Offense: How Washington's Wise Men Turned America's Future Over to Wall Street."
Lawrence Korb
senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.
Max Boot
senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of "War Made New" (Gotham Books)
Omar Samad
senior Afghanistan expert, US Institute of Peace,
former Afghan ambassador to France (2009-2011) and Canada (2004-2009) and Foreign ministry spokesman in Kabul (2001-2004).
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I had the great honor of getting to know a young man who is from Afghanistan and was studying here in the states for three years on a Fulbright scholarship. He tells me I can use his name when referencing what he says. But I do not. Last night after President OBama's speech about Afghanistan I contacted my friend about our role in his country and President Obama's speech:
"Regarding the Obama speech, we are glad for the signing strategic partnership agreement with the US. Afghanistan is located in a very sensitive region with two main regional powers, Pakistan and Iran, always want to keep Afghanistan politically and economically weak country in the region. Suppose Afghanistan rejects to sign strategic partnership with the US based on its moral obligation to care of the regional political sensitivities, but the Pakistan and Iran would not understand and appreciate this sacrifice. The only point they know is to fight for their political powers at the region. Therefore, Pakistan tries to use Taliban as a political tool in the region to put forward their internal interest in the region. We need a strong country like US to protect us from the regional distablizers.
However, Afghanistan still needs to fight for its political and economical better condition in the future. The desired outcomes will not be gained soon. It needs decades."
I had the great honor of getting to know a young man who is from Afghanistan and was studying here in the states for three years on a Fulbright scholarship. He is now back in his country He tells me I can use his name when referencing what he says. But I do not. Last night after President OBama's speech about Afghanistan I contacted my friend about our role in his country and President Obama's speech:
His response to my questions last evening. Directly from Afghanistan
"Regarding the Obama speech, we are glad for the signing strategic partnership agreement with the US. Afghanistan is located in a very sensitive region with two main regional powers, Pakistan and Iran, always want to keep Afghanistan politically and economically weak country in the region. Suppose Afghanistan rejects to sign strategic partnership with the US based on its moral obligation to care of the regional political sensitivities, but the Pakistan and Iran would not understand and appreciate this sacrifice. The only point they know is to fight for their political powers at the region. Therefore, Pakistan tries to use Taliban as a political tool in the region to put forward their internal interest in the region. We need a strong country like US to protect us from the regional distablizers.
However, Afghanistan still needs to fight for its political and economical better condition in the future. The desired outcomes will not be gained soon. It needs decades."
Why not have somebody interesting Like Noam Chomsky as a guest? Somebody with a clear ideology adds some sense of direction instead of just experts breaking down the facts. This would create drama, but drama can be a useful tool for getting to a sense of the issues at hand.
I recall there being resistance and hesitation on the part of the Obama administration in implementing a "surge" in Afghanistan. They also did not provide the number of troops that U.S. commanders were requesting. Any thoughts from your guests on the effect this has had on the quagmire?
Why are we negotiating with the Taliban when they continue their terrorist attacks on Afghans and attacks on the U.S. military? Is it true we are subsidizing their political/diplomatic mission in Qatar (may be UAE, I'll confess I'm not sure)?
I also take issue with Michael Hirsch excusing Obama for "inheriting" a mess in Afghanistan. By virtue of the fact that he ran for election, Obama was willing to accept the responsibility for U.S. foreign and domestic policy and leadership.
Max Boot hitched the go attack Iran wagon to Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's wagon...Max Boot wants to bomb bomb Iran. Romney is his best bet
The new screener sure has a problem allowing women through to make statements or ask questions about foreign policy. Did not try to call. But have sure been noticing that when I listen to the Rehm show. Real problem as if woman do not have opinions or read about foreign policy. Real gender bias. Happens on quite a few call in shows
Crush I believe NPR's Robert Siegel said he would never have the actually moderate Chomsky on his program. Maybe Siegel has quest approval power that permeates all NPR programs.
Anyone notice how the former Bush administration officials and former Cia analyst Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett are never on NPR including the Diane Rehm show because they have their fact based website "Race for Iran" informing the public with facts about US foreign policy and Iran. Charlie Rose had them on. Al Jazeera, BBC..but not the majority of MSM outlets. They stand on a negotiate with Iran view. Guess the Rehm team or someone has black listed them. Diane had Flynt on years ago. But not since then. Odd
Wow-all it takes is world travel and deeply thinking about things to be qualified to be President if the United States? Cool, I'm qualified. As to reinstating the draft, I was a draft resister in the 1960s/70s during the Vietnam War. I'd agree to reinstating the draft provided there are no deferments. The burden falls on everyone equally. There should be no student deferments (or in the case of Romney's kids) no religious deferments (which was how Romney got out). The rich don't get to stay in school while the poor get sent to fight the battles. Also, any member of Congress who votes for (or publicly supports the war) their kids get assigned to the front lines. While we're at it women should be equally subject to the draft. If the people who vote for these wars have "skin in the game" maybe they won't be quite so quick to put other people's children into harm's way.
The notion of negotiating with the Taliban seems somewhat comical to me. If you were the Taliban, would you even consider negotiating in a fair, honest, and reliable manner? If so, why? Your opposing force has announced their exit. Agree to anything, assist the USA out the door, then renege.
It seems that we didn't learn a thing in Vietnam or in Korea. A lot of blood and treasure expended; nothing solved.
As the historian said, "the first lesson of history is that no one learns from it." I can recall many years ago hearing a commentator state that America had won it's last war (he was referring to World War II). Seems that he may be right.
"kathleen wrote:
Crush I believe NPR's Robert Siegel said he would never have the actually moderate Chomsky on his program. Maybe Siegel has quest approval power that permeates all NPR programs.
Anyone notice how the former Bush administration officials and former Cia analyst Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett are never on NPR including the Diane Rehm show because they have their fact based website "Race for Iran" informing the public with facts about US foreign policy and Iran. Charlie Rose had them on. Al Jazeera, BBC..but not the majority of MSM outlets. They stand on a negotiate with Iran view. Guess the Rehm team or someone has black listed them. Diane had Flynt on years ago. But not since then. Odd
May 2, 2012 - 11:01 am"
As you probably know, "Democracy Now", has Chomsky often and occasionally the Leveretts, not affiliated with NPR, but Pacifica though.
If your favorite Public station doesn't carry it, the Site is high quality with video and audio in several formats and text.
Jolly old Siegel is probably just about as NeoCon as the Morning Gang, but seems to get a free ride.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"kathleen wrote:
The new screener sure has a problem allowing women through to make statements or ask questions about foreign policy. Did not try to call. But have sure been noticing that when I listen to the Rehm show. Real problem as if woman do not have opinions or read about foreign policy. Real gender bias. Happens on quite a few call in shows
May 2, 2012 - 10:56 am"
I don't know about callers, but Diane seems to respect her Female Guests enough, especially a couple of her favorites.
I listened to the Show during its very earliest days and in those days she took considerable questions from Middle-aged Women. Questions that were often more carefully framed and less likely to conceal agendas than those of her Male callers.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"StLouis wrote:
The notion of negotiating with the Taliban seems somewhat comical to me. If you were the Taliban, would you even consider negotiating in a fair, honest, and reliable manner? If so, why? Your opposing force has announced their exit. Agree to anything, assist the USA out the door, then renege.
May 2, 2012 - 11:15 am"
If that tired, overworn old Saw was true, why wouldn't their best strategy be to go back Home and quietly tend their Poppies until we declare Victory and leave, instead of increasing the violence??
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
I never know what to make of Korb, but he and Boot talked almost like normal people for awhile.
Then came Korb with the Draft- I would like to remind people that if there is ever another Draft, IT WILL NOT BE FAIR!!!!
Second, if there was a Draft, does anybody care to suggest a list of all the places where the insane Bush CIA/Mossad/FBI/NeoCon/GOP/Jew Media/Military/NRA Kabal would have our brave Military slaughtering barefoot Peasants??
Das Boot said the Afghans will need basic (military) services like Medivac etc, to continue the Counterinsurgency. How many Choppers, Planes, Intel capabilities will we provide?
And if the World's Best Equipped and Armed, but World's Stupidist Killing Machine can't secure the Pakistan Border, how will the Afghans?
Pakistan has suffered greatly for its support of our deranged, Decades-long meddling in Afghanistan and I hate to admit it, but I might like to see a Paki slap the snot out of some of these people who casually toss of remarks like,"The Taliban are under direct control of the ISI".
Finally, if the Soviets had won, would Afghanis be burning Girl's Schools or beheading Adultresses??
We must NEVER, NEVER, NEVER forget that we are responsible for most of what is wrong in Afghanistan today.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
The basic facts of Afghanistan are these: The USA plus Nato has tried for over a decade to conquer Afghanistan. It has poured billions of dollars into it. They have installed the crookest dictator on the planet as their preferred leader. Even with all this effort, at best the US has managed a stalemate. When US and NATO leave, Americans claim that Karzai will prevail. That makes no sense. How could the war go better for Karzai without help that with it? He will be hang from his thumbs or flee to hide in luxury on his drug money. The Taliban ground down the Russians and they have ground down the USA. The Taliban are fighting for their country. Americans can't even tell you why they are fighting. The American troops have no motivation but the pleasure of fighting. They have no delusions left their war has something to do with defending the USA.
I have to laugh at the naivety of the American military paying Taliban to switch sides. I could see Taliban signing up by the thousands, taking the money to buy rockets to blow up Americans, and acting as spies.
Only the must unscrupulous people cave to an occupying power. They may pretend to collaborate with the occupying force of course. Consider the Nazi occupation of France. Imagining the Taliban now love you after what you did to their children and their country just because you tossed them a few bucks is naive to the nth degree.
The military must be mentally ill, with monumental conceit, to imagine the Taliban could ever forgive them, must less join them.
Diane Rehm thanked a man for sending his son off to Afghanistan to fight.
This was as improper as congratulating a man for sending his son to war in Germany to fight for Hitler.
Both wars were illegal for the exact same reason. They were "aggressive" wars -- first strike. By international law, aiding and abetting such a war is a capital offense, not something you want to encourage your son to do. That charge was used to hang all the Nazis at the end of WWII. Read Ferencz, one of the prosecutors.
Nearly all Americans deny this is so. They flatly refuse to research the matter, or they equate lack of timely prosecution with innocence.