The Afghan war is going poorly. Along with the 51% who say we should get out before 2014, the slippery date Obama espouses, which I saw in another story the 69% who are against the war in general is very ecouraging. It is all over. Let us declare "victory" while we can still do so some what credibly and get out asap. I still have some hope that Obama will do so after he wins reelection, but must say it is disgusting that he may be trying to keep it going just to help in November 2012, much like Nixon kept the Vietnam War going longer for electoral purposes. *** Panetta, Polls, and the Afghan Quagmire 4By Matthew Rothschild, March 28, 2012 It’s disgusting to watch Defense Secretary Leon Panetta trying to justify the ongoing war in Afghanistan long after it’s proven unwinnable and now after the public has decisively moved against it. A recent poll showed that 69 percent of the American people are against the war. But Panetta doesn’t care. “We cannot fight wars by polls,” he said. “If we do that, we’re in deep trouble.” But it’s the people who are supposed to decide whether we wage war or not. That’s why our Constitution requires Congress, the elected officials closest to the people, to make this fateful decision, not the President, nor the Secretary of Defense, nor the brass. And the lesson of Vietnam, the lesson of Iraq, is that when the American public clearly doesn’t support the way anymore, the war can’t be won. The pathetic and inexcusable thing is that Panetta must know that himself. The generals must know it. And Obama must know it. But like Robert McNamara, and General Westmoreland, and Lyndon Johnson before them, they keep fighting the war because they are unwilling, for political reasons, to come clean to the American public that hired them. It’s shameful that they keep sending our soldiers to fight and die in a useless cause. And a government that continues to wage war without the support of its people forfeits the right to call itself a democracy. http://www.progressive.org/afghan_quagmire.html
End the war? Careful glynch you might be confused for a Ron Paulista fan or something with that line of thinking.
War and military spending drive our economy - we should get out of Afganastan, as soon as able...but that is not Iraq. DD
Panetta: War strategy can’t be guided by polls as survey shows most Americans oppose war http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...s-oppose-war/2012/03/27/gIQAS91jeS_print.html By Associated Press, Published: March 27 OTTAWA, Ontario — The war in Afghanistan can’t be determined by polls, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday, asserting that the U.S. must continue with its strategy in the decade-old conflict despite plummeting American confidence in the war. Panetta said that there is no question that the American people are tired of war. But, he said, the public understands the U.S. is engaged in Afghanistan because of the attacks on Sept. 11, and to prevent al-Qaida from again finding safe havens there to launch attacks. “We cannot fight wars by polls. If we do that we’re in deep trouble,” Panetta told reporters at a press conference after a day of meetings with Canadian and Mexican defense ministers here. “We have to operate based on what we believe is the best strategy to achieve the mission that we are embarked on. And the mission here is to safeguard our country by insuring that the Taliban and al-Qaida never again find a safe haven in Afghanistan.” A New York Times/CBS News poll found that 69 percent of those questioned believe the United States should not be at war in Afghanistan, and roughly the same amount say the fighting is going either somewhat or very badly. The numbers are up sharply from four months ago, when a bit more than half said the U.S. should not be at war in Afghanistan. The survey reflects a growing frustration among the public and on Capitol Hill with the war, even as the Obama administration tries to map out an exit strategy that would shift the security lead to the Afghans by mid-2013. Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay was even more blunt about the poll, saying that as one prime minister of Canada put it: “Polls are for dogs.” “This is our generation’s war, this is a test of perseverance,” said MacKay, whose country has about 1,000 troops in Afghanistan, largely doing training. “Our ability to carry through for the long-term security of not just Afghanistan but the region and also the entire world, so there is a lot at stake. Canada will be there with our NATO partners.” Panetta said that a lot of lives have been lost in the war, and “our commitment must be to insure that those lives have not been lost in vain.” He said that he and his military commanders are convinced that 2011 was a turning point in the war and that the levels of violence are declining. Panetta was in Ottawa to meet with his defense counterparts, in what U.S. officials hope will be a continuing effort to address shared security threats, including drug trafficking, cyber breaches and border issues. MacKay, Panetta, Gen. Guillermo Galvan Galvan, Mexico’s national defense secretary, and Adm. Mariano Francisco Saynex Mendoza, Mexico’s Navy secretary, all said that the three countries must improve their defense cooperation because many of the threats that cross the North American borders. The leaders agreed to formalize the process and continue to meet periodically on the issues. In other comments Tuesday, Panetta restated his support for the F-35 stealth fighter, and said the U.S. needs it for the future. But said the U.S. needs to continue to do as much oversight as possible over the contract process. And MacKay said the fighter is still the aircraft that Canada wants, but there will be careful monitoring of the program. Canada’s associate defense minister, Julian Fantino, said earlier this month that his government could back out of its multibillion-dollar plan to buy as many as 65 of the F-35 stealth fighters from the United States. The Lockheed Martin-manufactured fighter is the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons program and it has been troubled by schedule delays and cost overruns. In January, Panetta took the program off the probation which had been imposed by then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates a year earlier because it was experiencing “significant testing problems.” But Panetta has warned that the troubled program is not yet out of the woods. Ten years in, the total F-35 program cost has jumped from $233 billion to an estimated $385 billion. Recent estimates suggest the entire program could exceed $1 trillion over 50 years. The developer of the aircraft, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., is building three versions of the F-35 — one each for the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. The plane would replace Cold War-era aircraft such as the Air Force F-16 fighter and the Navy’s F/A-18 Hornet. In outlining next year’s defense budget, Panetta said the administration would slow the purchase of the F-35, a step Congress would have to approve. Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- And what was the reaction from liberals when Dick Cheney said the same thing? March 18, 2008 10:00 PM Why does Dick Cheney hate the American people? The audacity of Dick Cheney never ceases to amaze me. Check out what the Veep says in response to a question by ABC's Martha Raddatz about 2/3 of Americans thinking the war was not worth fighting. Raddatz: Two-thirds of Americans say it's not worth fighting, and they're looking at the value gain versus the cost in American lives, certainly, and Iraqi lives. Cheney: So? <sinister smirk> Raddatz: So -- you don't care what the American people think? Cheney: No, I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls. Think about what would have happened if Abraham Lincoln had paid attention to polls, if they had had polls during the Civil War. He never would have succeeded if he hadn't had a clear objective, a vision for where he wanted to go, and he was willing to withstand the slings and arrows of the political wars in order to get there. And this President has been very courageous, very consistent, very determined to continue down the course we were on and to achieve our objective. The Lincoln references just kill me. If there's one thing you gotta admire about Dick Cheney, it's that he sincerely doesn't give a ***** what you think. http://crooksandliars.com/2008/03/19/why-does-dick-cheney-hate-the-american-people
We can't rely on what people want, we have to stick to whatever the hell we want and see what happens.
Only hypocrisy for those who don't understand the position of people on the left who have supported the war. I was initially in favor of the war in Afghanistan, but always opposed to the war in Iraq. I'm happy there's a timeline set for when we get out of Afghanistan, and wouldn't mind if we bumped the timeline up.
Lots of lefties are internationalist who believe it is the duty of the Free World to free all the people of the world and deliver them to peace, democracy, humanism and egalitarianism. Of course, as it turns out, human beings are about a 100,000 year, half step step above the animals genetically and are still predisposed to mysticism, tribalism, feudalism, violence and pure shortsighted self interest. Our bad, won't try again.
As a lefty I don't think you are correct. Many leftists are international, but the crew who believe in war to bring peace, democracy, humanism and egalitarianism are not what are normally called "lefties". I can assure you that Obama, Clinton etc. do not think of themselves as lefties and would probably refuse to be identified publicly as even liberals.
OK, it was just me and the UN. (still coulda saved Iraq if they hadn't disbanded the civil system) Don't worry though, I now believe domination, corruption and abuse of power is the natural condition. Ill check back in about 100 years. (the machines have no evolutionary imperative)
