Afghanistan the UNwinnable war

The Liberal Conservative Government of Canada will be holding a vote on continuing the Harper War in Afghanistan for another three years.

Vote on Afghanistan motion set for March 13

Or maybe four years or heck lets make it five.

A WHOLE post-Cold War European generation has grown up in peace, give or take "some Balkan horror on television," which makes it hard to explain that "it's a political and moral imperative to fight for our core values in the Hindu Kush."

The words are those of Jaap de Hoop Scheffer of the Netherlands, the NATO secretary general. As he utters them, he leans forward, insisting that he doesn't think "Europe is becoming pacifist." But Afghanistan is testing European military resolve. It's the long war. It's Europe's Iraq.

Just back from Afghanistan, where NATO now has some 50,000 troops deployed, de Hoop Scheffer says it will be four to five years before international forces can pull back, taking a limited role in support of the emergent Afghan national army.

"A window of four to five years from now is an interesting window to watch in terms of reaching a situation where our forces are in the background," he says.

That takes us to 2013 or thereabouts.

Despite knowing full well that it is an unwinnable war.

The international community's approach to aid in Afghanistan is centred around the Afghanistan Compact, a series of development benchmarks agreed upon in 2006 to be reached by 2011.

But Afghanistan remains trapped in a cycle created by the theory that security is required for development but development is what provides security.

Theoretically, the success of development programs at the local level like CDCs should foster greater security as citizens come to trust and depend on their governments and refuse to support or join the insurgency.

But a slew of statistics from private security firms, NATO and the UN all suggest that the security situation in Afghanistan, and in Kandahar, is the worst it has been in a long time.

Which even the American right admits.

It has long been an article of faith among Democrats that Afghanistan is the "good war," a righteous campaign that could be won with more money and manpower. But the facts say otherwise. The U.S. Air Force rained more than a million pounds of bombs upon Afghanistan in 2007, mostly on innocent civilians. It's twice as much as was dropped in Iraq--and equally ineffective.

Six years after the U.S. invasion of 2001, according to Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, the U.S./NATO occupation force has surged from 8,000 to 50,000. But the Americans are having no more luck against the Afghans than had the Brits or the Soviet Union. The U.S.-backed government of Hamid Karzai controls a mere 30 percent of Afghanistan, admits McConnell. (Regional analysts say in truth it is closer to 15 percent.) Most of the country belongs to the charming guys who gave us babes in burqas and exploding Buddhas: the Taliban and likeminded warlords. "Afghanistan remains a failing state," says a report by General James Jones, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander. "The United States and the international community have tried to win the struggle in Afghanistan with too few military forces and insufficient economic aid."

SEE

And They Won Both World Wars Too

Harpers War The Manley Solution

Afghanistan A Failed State

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, Nukes, Pakistan, Taliban, Balochistan, Harper, Bush, Afghanistan, nuclear, nuclearfuel
NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, Graham, Liberals, Canada, Soldiers, Death, Injury, Afghanistan, Government, Politics, values, Men, mysogyny, women, Afghanistan, Canada, Harper, war, Taliban, Kabul, Karzai, Islam, fatewha, girls, school

McCain Presumptious

Well Bomb, Bomb Iran McCain made it official last night he is the presumptive Republican candidate for President. And Mike Huckabee gave him his crown of thorns by bowing out. But wait there is still another candidate who has not dropped out of the Republican race and is the thorn in McCain's side; Ron Paul.

Despite calls from his supporters, Paul insists he will not run for president as an independent. But he has pledged to continue his Republican presidential bid, knowing full well that the odds — and delegate math — are now firmly against him.

And last night McCain flip flopped on the war in Iraq. No longer is it going to be a hundred years war, but one that is concluded soon, after victory is declared and then troops moved out to fight the real war on terror; in Afghanistan. That's a major policy change. He is sounding more like Barack Obama despite having attacked him for virtually the same policy.

We are in Iraq and our most vital security interests are clearly involved there. The next president must explain how he or she intends to bring that war to the swiftest possible conclusion without exacerbating a sectarian conflict that could quickly descend into genocide; destabilizing the entire Middle East; enabling our adversaries in the region to extend their influence and undermine our security there; and emboldening terrorists to attack us elsewhere with weapons we dare not allow them to possess.

The next president must encourage the greater participation and cooperation of our allies in the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

See:

Ron Paul Spoiler



ind blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Republicans,US Presidential race, Ron Paul,
Iraq, <John McCain, Mike Huckabee,

Come Back Kid Or Pyrrhic Victory

Repeating her husbands famous 'comeback kid' routine Hillary Clinton tried to make her win in Rhode Island and Ohio and tie in Texas the big come back. Well it was a Pyrrhic victory of sorts. She has no mo', Obama has mo', she has the fight of her life, still. She was the front runner, she is the front runner, she is the inevitable candidate. Except she lost eleven primaries in a row until last night. And she lost Vermont in a big way.

Despite the her landslides in Rhode Island, and Ohio it was a squeaker in Texas, it was a virtual tie.

In Texas, with 77 percent of precincts reporting primary results, Clinton had 51 percent of the vote and Obama had 47 percent. Obama led in caucuses held after the primary vote, with 56 percent to Clinton's 44 percent, with 5 percent of precincts reporting.

Unlike Ohio she did not win overwhelmingly in Texas as she needed to. So she remains behind in delegates. And that's what counts. Delegates.

The Associated Press reported that all told, Mr. Obama retains his lead in the delegate count, with 1,477 pledged delegates compared to Mrs. Clinton’s 1,391. The A.P. said that 170 delegates from Tuesday’s contests have yet to be assigned, many from the Texas caucuses.

This is not a comeback it is a momentary gasping for air as her campaign continues to shamble along trying to figure out how to counter the Obama momentum. Sure she can claim Ohio as a big win, but it ain't really because in order to really be the come back kid she need to win big in BOTH Ohio and Texas and she didn't.

No Knockout in Dem Contest

Her whole campaign has been focused on early overwhelming victories. And in this she has been defeated by Obama. By this time her campaign had figured she would have already been her party's nominee. And she ain't. It will be decided at the convention. Which is good for the Democrats and Obama and bad for Clinton.

tags
US Presidential race,
Barack Obama, Democrats, Hillary Clinton,

Taft Toast

Before the election

After the election

Taft says he won't make a hasty exit

That's why it's called the bums rush......

but there will be an automatic leadership review in six to eight months.

d blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Alberta Kevin Taft,
Alberta, Alberta Liberals,Alberta Election,

Tories Lack Of Planning Wins Election

There was no enumeration done between the 2004 an 2008 election despite thousands of new people coming to the province to gain from the current boom. Instant Albertans, you only have to live here for six months to be eligible to be called an Albertan and vote, became eligible to vote during that time. But did the Tired Old Tories do a new enumeration. Nope. So massive amounts of voters found themselves having to fill out forms at polling stations identifying where they live. On line attempts to register also failed.

I scrutineered the advance poll in Edmonton Strathcona and again election night and watched as frustrate voters were directed to identify themselves with a picture id and a power bill showing where they lived. In many cases these folks had voted in the last provincial and federal and municipal elections and had not moved!!! Polling stations overlapped so voters came to a poll they thought they voted at only to be told to go somewhere else.

The Tories had no plan for this election. Which is like the rest of their policies, make em up on the fly. So the result was that they only got elected because the majority of Albertans did not vote.

The Tories got elected through voter enui, which they count on. Unfortunately the old anarchist adage, Don't Vote It Only Encourages Them, applies here but not as one would think.

'Won't vote' wins majority

Another, rather perverse, possibility is that some non-voters realize the political class is a lot more likely to worry about them if they don't vote -- by writing earnest opinion articles about the dangers of a disengaged electorate, for example -- than if they validate the process by marking ballots.

The Tories count on Albertans not voting in order to get elected. I know it appears counter intuitive but they really don't want Albertans to vote it ensures their re-election. They all but admit that. They reminded us of that Monday night when Ed told the press that Albertans "only vote to turf out a government". As they did in the landslide election of 1935 and again in 1971.

Alberta's "shameful" voter turnout for its provincial election sparked anger and disappointment Tuesday, with analysts trying to figure out the root of the apathy and Liberals calling for a probe of voting problems.

Only 41.3 per cent of eligible Albertans cast ballots Monday -- a record low for the province and the worst turnout to elect any current sitting government in the country.

Some Albertans blamed voting problems -- like being directed to the wrong voting station -- for not being able to cast their ballots.

Turnout has been sliding in Alberta since 1993, and this time the number came in below the previous worst – 44.7 per cent in 2004.

Let's conclude -- and underline the truly dreadful nature of Monday's turnout -- by stating party results in terms of all potential voters.

Doing that, we see that of 2,252,104 folks on the voters list, about 22.2 per cent voted Tory, 11.1 per cent voted Liberal, 3.6 per cent voted NDP, 2.6 per cent voted Wildrose Alliance, and two per cent voted Green.

blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, media,
Alberta, Premier, Ed Stelmach,
election,PC, Liberals, Conservatives,Brian Mason, Kevin Taft, Alberta election,NDP,Kevin Taft,
Alberta, Alberta Liberals,Alberta Election,