Obama's War

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The new president fired missiles into Pakistan, killing at least fifteen people. The locals say three children were killed. Obama's White House, advertised as the most transparent in US history, has no comment. Less than a week into his presidency, and he's already ordering bombings. Thanks to Antiwar.com for the links.

The Democrats and Obama have long emphasized Afghanistan and Pakistan as the central front of the war on terror, appropriating Bush rhetoric and bellicosity with just a change in scenery. But just as none of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi, none were Afghani or Pakistani either.

Yes, there are terrorists in Pakistan, maybe even bin Laden. This is not retribution for 9/11, though, but rather the first major act in Obama's chapter of the indefinite, open-ended war on terror. He might have not done Iraq, but he would have waged an even more aggressive war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, if we take his word for it.

In any event, bombings that kill children, nation-building crusades, invasions and occupations are not the effective way to handle terrorism, as many holeful peaceniks understood as they voted for Obama, hoping for a change toward peace.

This is a great opportunity for President Obama to effect real change in foreign policy -- the best, most politically viable opportunity for a shift toward non-intervention since the end of the Cold War. But Obama is an interventionist, at home and abroad. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And big government at home and empire abroad are just that hammer. So more "collateral damage" can be expected, as this new administration feels itself out and figures out what it wants to do abroad -- in all the third-world nations that presidents are accustomed to viewing as their playgrounds for imperial experimentation.

Campaign For Liberty — Obama's War

 

[Munin]

Well yeah, but this is no different then what Bush did. It is actually a war from the Bush years, so it is his war not Obama's war.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well yeah, but this is no different then what Bush did. It is actually a war from the Bush years, so it is his war not Obama's war.

Of course it's no different from what Bush did, that's the problem. Obama is the President now and he has the power to stop this nonsense. If he doesn't, then it is indeed his war.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Well yeah, but this is no different then what Bush did. It is actually a war from the Bush years, so it is his war not Obama's war.

Of course it's no different from what Bush did, that's the problem. Obama is the President now and he has the power to stop this nonsense. If he doesn't, then it is indeed his war.

During his campaign, Obama promised to increase our military force in Afghanistan and to strike targets of opportunity inside of Pakistan. Why would anyone have expected him to do anything else once in office?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well yeah, but this is no different then what Bush did. It is actually a war from the Bush years, so it is his war not Obama's war.

Of course it's no different from what Bush did, that's the problem. Obama is the President now and he has the power to stop this nonsense. If he doesn't, then it is indeed his war.

During his campaign, Obama promised to increase our military force in Afghanistan and to strike targets of opportunity inside of Pakistan. Why would anyone have expected him to do anything else once in office?

Just because this was expected doesn't mean it should not be condemned.

 

[Svante]

Well yeah, but this is no different then what Bush did. It is actually a war from the Bush years, so it is his war not Obama's war.

Of course it's no different from what Bush did, that's the problem. Obama is the President now and he has the power to stop this nonsense. If he doesn't, then it is indeed his war.

the president cant stop the war becuase the terroriist are i n pakistian and Afghaniistan.

 

[Modbert]

Of course it's no different from what Bush did, that's the problem. Obama is the President now and he has the power to stop this nonsense. If he doesn't, then it is indeed his war.

During his campaign, Obama promised to increase our military force in Afghanistan and to strike targets of opportunity inside of Pakistan. Why would anyone have expected him to do anything else once in office?

Just because this was expected doesn't mean it should not be condemned.

Kevin, Pakistan is not our ally despite both sides claim they are. They been hiding Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists since 2001 and would claim a act of war if we went to get such terrorists.

We should of never been in Iraq, but we should of had done better in Afghanistan and we need to stop the terrorists in Pakistan. If we don't stop them there, they will just merely bide their time again and become stronger then ever as their survival can be used as a terrorist recruitment drive.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Of course it's no different from what Bush did, that's the problem. Obama is the President now and he has the power to stop this nonsense. If he doesn't, then it is indeed his war.

During his campaign, Obama promised to increase our military force in Afghanistan and to strike targets of opportunity inside of Pakistan. Why would anyone have expected him to do anything else once in office?

Just because this was expected doesn't mean it should not be condemned.

Whether or not it should be condemned is a separate issue from whether this is a Bush or an Obama policy. Imo, it is an area in which they agree on what the policy should be, and I agree with both of them. I just don't see a viable alternative to using military force in this conflict. In order to protect ourselves, we cannot allow governments to take power that will host al Qaeda or its affiliates. 9/11 taught us that.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Killing children doesn't make the U.S. safer. It gives people the incentive to become terrorists and attack us at home and our troops or officials abroad.

 

[mash107]

Killing children doesn't make the U.S. safer. It gives people the incentive to become terrorists and attack us at home and our troops or officials abroad.

I do truly have a good, hearty laugh whenever anyone actually believes Obama is going to change Washington. He was elected solely on his rhetoric. Same war, same tactics, same economic policies, same results.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Killing children doesn't make the U.S. safer. It gives people the incentive to become terrorists and attack us at home and our troops or officials abroad.

Perhaps, but they clearly already had that incentive before we went into Afghanistan, and by attacking them where they live we prevent the terrorists from having a base of operations from which to organize and carry out terror attacks against us at home or abroad. Again, I don't see any viable alternative to military force in this area to protect our security at home. If you have another strategy in mind, please tell me what it is.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Killing children doesn't make the U.S. safer. It gives people the incentive to become terrorists and attack us at home and our troops or officials abroad.

Perhaps, but they clearly already had that incentive before we went into Afghanistan, and by attacking them where they live we prevent the terrorists from having a base of operations from which to organize and carry out terror attacks against us at home or abroad. Again, I don't see any viable alternative to military force in this area to protect our security at home. If you have another strategy in mind, please tell me what it is.

A non-interventionist foreign policy would be best for the U.S. Leave Afghanistan, leave Iraq, and leave all the other countries we're currently occupying. Declare the "War on Terror" to be officially ended. Trade with all, entangling alliances with none.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Killing children doesn't make the U.S. safer. It gives people the incentive to become terrorists and attack us at home and our troops or officials abroad.

Perhaps, but they clearly already had that incentive before we went into Afghanistan, and by attacking them where they live we prevent the terrorists from having a base of operations from which to organize and carry out terror attacks against us at home or abroad. Again, I don't see any viable alternative to military force in this area to protect our security at home. If you have another strategy in mind, please tell me what it is.

A non-interventionist foreign policy would be best for the U.S. Leave Afghanistan, leave Iraq, and leave all the other countries we're currently occupying. Declare the "War on Terror" to be officially ended. Trade with all, entangling alliances with none.

That was the situation on 9/11. Clearly it didn't keep us safe.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Perhaps, but they clearly already had that incentive before we went into Afghanistan, and by attacking them where they live we prevent the terrorists from having a base of operations from which to organize and carry out terror attacks against us at home or abroad. Again, I don't see any viable alternative to military force in this area to protect our security at home. If you have another strategy in mind, please tell me what it is.

A non-interventionist foreign policy would be best for the U.S. Leave Afghanistan, leave Iraq, and leave all the other countries we're currently occupying. Declare the "War on Terror" to be officially ended. Trade with all, entangling alliances with none.

That was the situation on 9/11. Clearly it didn't keep us safe.

That was far from the situation on 9/11.

 

[Munin]

You don't let the guy who did 9/11 get away scot-free, the US wants his head. It is a powerful signal that the US needs to send, the guy who did the biggest terrorist crime in US history should not be able to walk away with it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You don't let the guy who did 9/11 get away scot-free, the US wants his head. It is a powerful signal that the US needs to send, the guy who did the biggest terrorist crime in US history should not be able to walk away with it.

It's been roughly 7 and a half years since 9/11 and we still don't have bin-Laden, and that situation doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon however many civilians and children are killed. I agree that bin-Laden needs to be brought to justice, but the war on terror is a war of perpetuity that cannot possibly be won and the costs are far too high.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You don't let the guy who did 9/11 get away scot-free, the US wants his head. It is a powerful signal that the US needs to send, the guy who did the biggest terrorist crime in US history should not be able to walk away with it.

It's been roughly 7 and a half years since 9/11 and we still don't have bin-Laden, and that situation doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon however many civilians and children are killed. I agree that bin-Laden needs to be brought to justice, but the war on terror is a war of perpetuity that cannot possibly be won and the costs are far too high.

The war on terror is a war to contain the terrorists to a place and a manner of surviving that will keep them from successfully attacking us again. Winning the war on terror is a long term goal that will require us to secure Afghanistan and help develop the government and the economy of that place as a bulwark against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Pakistan and then to strengthen the government of Pakistan so that it can contain or destroy al Qaeda and the Taliban in that country. It may then be necessary to apply this strategy to other places where Islamic terrorists are strong, such as Somalia and Sudan.

Containment is the immediate goal of the war on terror. When the terrorists are contained by the local or regional governments more than by us, we will have won our war on terror although other governments may still be struggling with their's.

 

[toomuchtime_]

A non-interventionist foreign policy would be best for the U.S. Leave Afghanistan, leave Iraq, and leave all the other countries we're currently occupying. Declare the "War on Terror" to be officially ended. Trade with all, entangling alliances with none.

That was the situation on 9/11. Clearly it didn't keep us safe.

That was far from the situation on 9/11.

Be specific. How was that not the situation on 9/11?

 

[Munin]

You don't let the guy who did 9/11 get away scot-free, the US wants his head. It is a powerful signal that the US needs to send, the guy who did the biggest terrorist crime in US history should not be able to walk away with it.

It's been roughly 7 and a half years since 9/11 and we still don't have bin-Laden, and that situation doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon however many civilians and children are killed. I agree that bin-Laden needs to be brought to justice, but the war on terror is a war of perpetuity that cannot possibly be won and the costs are far too high.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are not just the war on terror, they are also a war on drugs. And the US, NATO can't afford a humiliation in Afghanistan. The thing is that we don't have a choice: we need to bring the war abroad or they will bring the war to us. Right now terrorists are on the defense, if you give them room and retreat from Afghanistan we are going to be on the defense and that you do not want to happen.

The war on terror in general will never be won, because terrorism is just like any other crime. All wars can be won, you just need the right aproach: the US handled Iraq wrong, they couldn't understand that Iraqis need to solve the problems in Iraq not the Americans and now they ve come to realize that they can "solve" problems. The same is true in Afghanistan, you need the local people on your side.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You don't let the guy who did 9/11 get away scot-free, the US wants his head. It is a powerful signal that the US needs to send, the guy who did the biggest terrorist crime in US history should not be able to walk away with it.

It's been roughly 7 and a half years since 9/11 and we still don't have bin-Laden, and that situation doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon however many civilians and children are killed. I agree that bin-Laden needs to be brought to justice, but the war on terror is a war of perpetuity that cannot possibly be won and the costs are far too high.

The war on terror is a war to contain the terrorists to a place and a manner of surviving that will keep them from successfully attacking us again. Winning the war on terror is a long term goal that will require us to secure Afghanistan and help develop the government and the economy of that place as a bulwark against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Pakistan and then to strengthen the government of Pakistan so that it can contain or destroy al Qaeda and the Taliban in that country. It may then be necessary to apply this strategy to other places where Islamic terrorists are strong, such as Somalia and Sudan.

Containment is the immediate goal of the war on terror. When the terrorists are contained by the local or regional governments more than by us, we will have won our war on terror although other governments may still be struggling with their's.

So 7 and a half years later we're still in Afghanistan, we've made a mess of Iraq, we've begun bombing "strategic" targets in Pakistan, and you think it may be necessary to do something about Somalia and Sudan. How many more years, lives, and trillions of dollars (that we do not have) is it going to take to achieve our immediate goal of containment?