Posts Tagged ‘Afghanistan’
|
Sunday, March 14th, 2010
6 minutes 10 seconds into video Jackson Lee
Apparently she opposes Obama and his war.
Tags: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Congress, Election 2010, Houston Voters, Terrorism
Posted in National Issues, Sheila Jackson Lee, The U.S. Government | No Comments »
Saturday, November 28th, 2009
If President Barack Obama announces next week he’s sending more than 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, as he’s expected to do, most members of Congress will have plenty to say about it. Most of it will be critical.
But they won’t be able to do much about it. Obama’s change in military strategy doesn’t require a vote of Congress. And many of the critics will have little appetite to use the one powerful tool that lawmakers have: cutting off funding.
Still, the conflicting views could test the strong alliance between Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Obama will travel to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point for the announcement Tuesday. But his prime-time address will come just as lawmakers return from a week-long recess, so lawmakers will be able to quickly weigh in with support or criticism.
Republicans are likely to fault Obama for arriving at a number 6,000 troops short of the 40,000 sought by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
Liberal Democrats, many of whom supported Obama precisely because he was an early opponent of the Iraq war, will likely lambaste him for escalating another far-flung conflict. Liberals say Obama should lean more on diplomacy and economic development since trying to control Afghanistan with force has proven futile throughout history.
Tags: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Congress
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Tuesday, November 10th, 2009
In Defense of Hamid Karzai
Our government is in a quandary over what to do about Afghanistan. They tried unsuccessfully for several weeks to oust Hamid Karzai. This article provides important background on why it is good that our government failed in it’s attempt.
We need leadership in Washington that will look at the facts before dumping allies.
In the matter of Hamid Karzai (this would be the feckless, warlord-backed, corruption-tainted and dubiously re-elected president of Afghanistan), it’s wonderful to observe how he has single-handedly created a new designation in the American ideological lexicon: the neo-neocon.
Who are the neo-neocons? They’re a bipartisan, single-issue group that has recently discovered the virtues—nay, the necessity—of clean, orderly, democratic governance.
On the left, they are the same folks who enthusiastically supported the Oslo Accords that brought about Yasser Arafat’s violent and kleptocratic rule. They were no less enthusiastic about underwriting the enterprise with billions in foreign aid, even as evidence accumulated that the money was being put to every use except improving the life of Palestinians.
These historical precedents are worth recalling because they are the templates of the kind of governance Afghans can reasonably expect. Would they have done better under Mr. Karzai’s main challenger in the last election, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah? Maybe, but Dr. Abdullah is half-Tajik. And the brute reality of Afghanistan is that it would be even more difficult to govern under a non-Pashtun president, since Pashtuns are half the Afghan population and most of the trouble.
No wonder, then, that the announcement of Mr. Karzai’s re-election was greeted in Kabul with “a collective sigh of relief,” as the Washington Post reported last week. “I think people were fed up with this controversy over the election,” the Post quoted a running mate of Dr. Abdullah. “I think it’s a good thing that this is finished. Whether it’s legal or not, we can stop discussing this matter. Now he’s elected.”
Full article here
Tags: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Congress, Foreign Policy
Posted in National Issues, The U.S. Government | No Comments »
Monday, November 2nd, 2009
In the last years of the Vietnam War American troops were kept in the villages making them safe. This deprived the Viet Cong of food and shelter. It also emboldened the local people to join local militias and defend their territory.
In Iraq when the surge troops went in it had the same effect. Our troops stayed in the towns and villages making them safe and gaining the support of the people. The local men then felt safe joining the Iraqi army and police forces. The people also felt safe from retaliation for giving intelligence information to our forces.
It also worked in the American Civil War in reverse. I watched a documentary on one of the History Channels Friday night on the show “The Conquerors”. It was about General Sherman. The story had a narrator and a number of historians were interviewed throughout the show. The gist of it was Sherman was bothered by the million plus soldiers (both sides) killed before his “March to the Sea”. He wanted to destroy the South’s will to fight.
Many powerful people in the South still thought they could win. I guess they had visions of getting Northern booty.
Confederate President Jefferson Davis and General Robert E. Lee both having lived up north knew of the industry up there. The north could grow food and raise cattle. It had plenty of factories to build weapons, wagons and trains and lots of immigrants because of the factories.
The south was predominately agricultural and had to rely on importing equipment from Europe.
It was fairly obvious before the war that the North would win (according to historians).
So Sherman decided that by marching his 60,000 strong army to Savannah he would show that the Union Army could go anywhere it wanted. He didn’t order his troops to destroy everything in their path but he refrained from stopping them. When his army approached the city of Middleton, the Capital of Georgia at the time, he told them do not destroy anything. They kept it in tact. He occupied the City and lived in the Capital Building for 2 weeks before moving on to Savannah for symbolism. He had arranged before hand for re-supply ships to meet him at Savannah.
The result of his march was it demoralized the South and it demoralized the southern troops fighting further up north in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc. The troops were worried about the safety of their families back home. Same as the Vietnamese soldiers (Vietnamese soldiers were known to desert if they were sent to areas far from their homes) and the Afghan Government army.
Sherman’s hated March to the Sea was effective and helped end the war sooner.
By sending the necessary troops to Afghanistan we can provide safety in the villages 24/7 and increase the size and effectiveness of the Afghani Army in the war. The Afghanis are fighting to defend their homeland from al Qaeda and their tribal territory from the Taliban. They have a vested interest.
I have to state that as a retired accountant I don’t have the personal expertise to critique the information I am relaying to you. Although I believe the information is true if the documentary is true and if the books and articles I have read are true.
Tags: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, More troops, National Security
Posted in National Issues, The U.S. Government, Voices of the 18th Congressional District | No Comments »
Saturday, October 10th, 2009
Comment re: What the Afghans Really Want
The Taliban now owe their survival to al-Qaeda. And if they get their country back, that debt has to be re-paid by helping al-Qaeda in its global aspirations.”
When Hitler wanted to conquer the world his tactics were to first conquer neighboring countries. Use their natural resources, metals and oil, etc. and factories to build war equipment. He conscripted their population into his army and enslaved parts of their population to build roads, factories, etc. He believed if he kept expanding this way he could incrementally achieve his goal. He fought on the European front simultaneously with the Russian front because he needed oil from the lower Russian states.
Now look at al-Qaeda. They need a country to start with for military bases. Afghanistan can provide bases as well as poppies. The poppies are the money crop of the Afghanis. From there they probably plan to spread to Pakistan. They recently got within about 60 miles of Islamabad.
Taliban battle to just 60 miles from Islamabad as Pakistan’s military is ordered to protect the capital
From there they would go to other countries but also blackmail other countries by threatening them with nuclear weapons captured in Pakistan. So by stopping then in Afghanistan and western Pakistan it avoids a lot of future battles. To not hold them back now means we just have to come back and fight them later.
Tags: Afghanistan, al-Qaeda, Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, National Security, Sheila Jackson Lee
Posted in National Issues, Sheila Jackson Lee, The U.S. Government | No Comments »
Saturday, October 10th, 2009
“Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas Democrat who is co-chairman of House caucuses on both Afghanistan and Pakistan, warned that a troop increase could “reignite the war” in Afghanistan. Democrats aren’t united on the issue, she said.” Obama, Top Officials Review Afghanistan Troop Request “There probably is a reasonable amount of support” in the House for increasing troop levels, she said in an interview. “There is also a vocal opposition.”
I was just reading a page on the U.K. Telegraph from Oct 9, 2009 and it had a reference and link a U.S. website Dems Change Stance on Military and Afghanistan . It talks about U.S. vacillation and indecision (while each day our troops are getting killed and wounded).
It is very important to identify what we want to achieve in Afghanistan or we will never know whether or not we achieved it. We know what the Afghans want or at least they do. What The Aghans Really Want (This article is by lara Logan and is a must read.) “What does this mean? In the simplest terms, this fight is about power. The Pashtun tribal fighters who make up the Taliban want to control their country once again.”
“The Taliban now owe their survival to al-Qaeda. And if they get their country back, that debt has to be re-paid by helping al-Qaeda in its global aspirations.” Hence the Global War on Terror.
The U.S. has a history of abandoning a place and our allies there, and having to go back and re-take it later at the cost of additional American lives.
In Iraq we learned the hard way that to earn the confidence of the people you have to protect them. The towns and villages belonged to Al-Qaeda at night. We went into them during the day and left before dark so we could be back in our bases safe and comfortable at night. Any local who gave us information during our daytime visit got a terminal lesson at night. The surge enabled us to leave troops in the towns and villages at night to protect the people. Once the people gained confidence in us they started to give us information that led to capturing bad guys. It also enabled the Iraqi Government to get the support of the people.
As co-chairman of House caucuses on both Afghanistan and Pakistan Sheila Jackson Lee really needs to get informed about what we must accomplish and how to go about it.
Tags: Afghanistan, Congress, consequence of failure, National Security
Posted in National Issues, News releases, Sheila Jackson Lee, The U.S. Government | No Comments »
|
