Afghanistan Offensive and Iraq Withdrawal: Obama's National Security Advisor Discusses Both with ABC News

I hope the SOFA expires unratified July 31, 2009 and the US leaves.

The reason to fight the Taliban is because they tend to give safe haven to groups like AQ that plot against Americans and the West. The Taliban offensive in nuclear-armed Pakistan came dangerously close to collapsing the government. This is not a good thing.

So far in the Afghan offensive, one killed, one missing, and seven wounded. As they always have, the Marines are fighting and dying to preserve for us, and to give others, the personal freedoms we carelessly take for granted. Their work makes "Independence Day" possible -- thank you.

Deploying troops in Afghanistan is a strategic mistake. There is no benefit for us fighting the Taliban. The Taliban became our enemy when they refused to hand over Al Qaeda after 9/11, but we don't need to view their very existence as a permanent problem for us.

Surely, it's a substantially militant group. There will always be militant groups in one place or another, but it doesn't mean we have to become enemies with all of them. Yes, they will fight, but, we don't have to be the fodder for their aggression. They are much more likely to fight each other or their neighbors, than us. If you were itching for a fight, would you attack someone all the way across the globe?

We need to find a way to diffuse the prevailing image that we are their #1 enemies, and let them pick fights with somebody else.

The Spartans would be proud.

"My question to you goes back to your first post and your acceptance at face value of total nonsense." - posted by robertb

Jeesh robert I didn't "accept total nonsense" at face value, I simply posted what was being reported about the Iraqi reaction.

I gone into a search for news reporting regarding any violence after the american withdrawal from the cities and that's what I found.

You seem to be making up your own reports about what's going on. Fine with me.

BAGHDAD — A day after Iraqis celebrated the formal withdrawal of American combat troops from towns and cities, leaders of some of the most high-profile insurgent and opposition groups had their say on Wednesday.

Statements were released by a former senior ally of Saddam Hussein, a Sunni clerical association that has sanctioned armed resistance and Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric, all of which hailed the withdrawal as a victory for the resistance and compared it to the beginning of the revolt against the British occupation in 1920.

The statements all commanded Iraqis to continue fighting the American military until it had left the country completely; nearly 130,000 troops remain. The statements also insisted, in unusually clear language, that Iraqis not turn their violence on one another.

My question to you goes back to your first post and your acceptance at face value of total nonsense. "Statements were released by a former senior ally of Saddam Hussein, a Sunni clerical association that has sanctioned armed resistance and Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric, all of which hailed the withdrawal as a victory for the resistance...The statements also insisted, in unusually clear language, that Iraqis not turn their violence on one another. "

The Iraqis, not us, have been wiping the floor both militarily and politically with Moqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army and his political stooges in Basra and Sadr City.

This former ally of Saddam Hussein used to command a coalition of Baathists and Al Qaeda. Its all broken into smithereens. The Sunni Awakening of former insurgents that grew to hate the Al Qaeda jihadists is NOW part of the Iraqi government.

It is impossible to believe the statment of these insurgents "that Iraqis not turn their violence on one another". Their modus operandi always has been and will continue to be - cause mass casualties (hopefully among the OTHER ethnic group, but not very particular) and divisiveness among CIVILIANS!!

"we'll fight everybody, everywhere, all the time! Just for you."

No our brave soldiers already ARE in 40 nations just for all of US

posted by robertb

-----------------------------------

So what exactly is your problem then robertb?

"we'll fight everybody, everywhere, all the time! Just for you."

No our brave soldiers already ARE in 40 nations just for all of US

robertb. . ..

"Are you in for the long haul for training and counterinsurgency in Phillipines, Southern Thailand, Algeria, Benin, Chad, etc, etc as well??"

Oh yes, we'll fight everybody, everywhere, all the time! Just for you.

Xianyang - that really was an oops . I meant Xinjiang province home of the Uighurs which...uhh...oh boy!!

Dont tell Bermuda and Palau, OK.

Again Ryan, welcome to the fight!!
But remember its a long one and the enemy doesn't stay in one place.
OBL was in Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, then Afghanistan.
He is now likely in Wazirstan, part of nuclear Pakistan. We destabilize them, that's the ball game, Ryan. Tomorrow he could be in a remote section of Kashmir, Tajikistan, Xianyang - oops more problems with neighbors

I have a problem with "central front" as often described. Central HQ only and that doesn't say much for a cell-based terror network. Dozen of nations have AQ operatives and front groups that have merged with AQ.
Are you in for the long haul for training and counterinsurgency in Phillipines, Southern Thailand, Algeria, Benin, Chad, etc, etc as well??

"Congratulations, but has it been on your radar or that of Rep. Obey or the Dems? Really!!??"

I can only speak for myself.

"The deaths were 12 in 2001, 60 in 2002, the last time you probably noticed. Its easy to be the "good war" when it average 30 billion a year and 100 combat deaths."

Wars are not made good by their body count or cost.

Wars are made "good" by their purpose.

Invading and occupying Iraq had little if anything to do with national security or the War on Terror.

Afghanistan on the otherhand is about going after the organization that attacked our country and killed 3000 Americans on 9/11.

"Ryan, I give you less than a year, (just like Rep. David Obey, that old Viet antiwar rebel, has given Obama to get results)to sour on this new surge, this new coalition.... "Well let's see I have supported the mission in Afghanistan since it began in Oct 2001. So that's 7 1/2 years so far. Posted by: Ryan C | Jul 2, 2009 3:43:12 PM

Congratulations, but has it been on your radar or that of Rep. Obey or the Dems? Really!!?? The deaths were 12 in 2001, 60 in 2002, the last time you probably noticed. Its easy to be the "good war" when it average 30 billion a year and 100 combat deaths.

But its 86 so far, 158 with Brits and Canadians, with the surge and real action we're talking 300-500 Coalition deaths this year. 500 a year of course is cheap if you're really talking about charging the caves and Tora Bora and crossing into Waziristan.

As far as money, Pentagon is already saying 65 billion for Afghanistan in 2010, 61 billion for Iraq. Got that. I guess that a couple bil less a month than I've heard before re Iraq but that imagines no additional supply costs thru Pakistan or the Russian Stans, hah, and all coalition partners paying their share, hah.

$100 bil in continuing war costs, 500 deaths, you're OK with that.
Ryan, welcome to the fight.

"Ryan, I give you less than a year, (just like Rep. David Obey, that old Viet antiwar rebel, has given Obama to get results)to sour on this new surge, this new coalition. Even if they drag the body of OBL out of there, the struggle will go on. "

Well let's see I have supported the mission in Afghanistan since it began in Oct 2001.

So that's 7 1/2 years so far.

"Who'd she vote for? Herself? Ron Paul!!??"

Cindy Sheehan's vote?

Perhaps Cynthia McKinney? She ran on the Green Party ballot.

Danita, as I told Ryan, I give you less than a year, (just like Rep. David Obey, that old Viet antiwar rebel, has given Obama to get results)to sour on this new surge, this new coalition.

Even if they drag the body of OBL out of there, the struggle will go on.

Ryan, Danita, are you with us or against us in the long haul?!

AND Danita, what's your answer to:

"Isn't your savior Obama going to spare us this ignominy? Isn't his doubletalk on Iran going to defang Ahmadenijad? Isn't the sacrificial lamb in our own hemisphere to Hugo Chavez enough to show our good faith?

And don't you know it is a complete lie that these insurgents "that Iraqis not turn their violence on one another". ??Their modus operandi has been and will continue to be - cause mass casualties (hopefully among the OTHER ethnic group, but not very particular) and divisiveness among CIVILIANS!!

Obama was quite clear he intended to increase the war effort in Afghanistan and end the Iraq blunder.

"The far left voted for him anyway thinking he would come around to their way of thinking." I suppose you have evidence of this?

One for Ryan - supposedly. Who'd she vote for? Herself? Ron Paul!!??
I'll be back, let me check Susan Sarandon

Cindy Sheehan - March 2009 - World Cant Wait

"I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars. Barack Obama: October 2002. For the record, I did not support Barack Obama for President of this country. Of course the above quote was from his famous “anti-war” speech, that was not an anti-war speech, but an anti-Iraq war speech and this is just a sound bite from a mostly nationalistic and pro-war speech.

I opposed Obama, though, because I actually listened to what he said about foreign policy when he was Candidate Obama. He never, ever said that he was going to withdraw all troops from Iraq and he always said that he was going to increase troop levels, not only in Afghanistan, but also in the military over-all. His budget increases military spending at a time when education, health care, wages and jobs are declining. Obama is a militarist-corporatist and haven’t we had enough of this kind of “leadership” in the past three decades?

"An echo of the far left, actually, who voted for Obama thinking he was going to end both wars and bring everyone home." Obama was quite clear that the war on terror should have been fought in Afghanistan and that Iraq was an idiotic mistake costing us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
Posted by: Ryan C | Jul 2, 2009 1:59:12 PM

TC Timmy is correct at least in the first go round. "...surge won't work! Bring our troops home" was his call and while Obama was for a continuing and strengthened AFPAK effort most of his followers missed that.

Ryan, I give you less than a year, (just like Rep. David Obey, that old Viet antiwar rebel, has given Obama to get results)to sour on this new surge, this new coalition. Even if they drag the body of OBL out of there, the struggle will go on.

Ryan, are you with us or against us in the long haul?!