So proud of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leading the way on ending nuclear proliferation and nuclear disarmament in New York.
Wasn't it great to see them at the United Nations together!
While my mother was for Hillary and I was for Barrack, we are both very happy now to see them representing us as a team on the world stage. Success!
At least one blogger believes that Bush plant General David Petraeus is seeking personal political mojo and is out to trap President Obama into taking responsibility for losing the war.
Though in the past HRC has been in favor of more troops, I am very hopeful that Secretary of State Clinton will be able to support President Obama against the onslaught by professional and retired military advisors, not to mention greedy contractors who want to keep us in endless war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Five more US dead annouced today.
With the news today that five more US soldiers were killed in Afghanistan, some of us feel it is more important than ever to ramp up our efforts to bring this occupation to an end:
Five U.S. troops killed in southern Afghanistan Three are slain in a roadside bombing, and two in other attacks.
Of the five deaths, four occurred in the southeastern province of Zabul; the fifth took place in the southwestern province of Nimroz.
Although foreign casualties tend to make headlines, Afghans are dying in far larger numbers, undercutting NATO efforts to win hearts and minds.
"Sure the Taliban didn't give women rights, and young girls couldn't go to school," said Gul Mohammad, 60, a shopkeeper in Kabul, the capital. "But they were good with security. There were no kidnappings, no thieves stealing from our shops. We need security."
The latest American casualties come as the country struggles to finalize drawn-out election results. The official tally, which gave incumbent President Hamid Karzai 54.6% of the vote to 27.8% for his chief rival and former Foreign Secretary Abdullah Abdullah, has been marred by fraud allegations and is under review. If enough ballots are ruled invalid to put Karzai below 50%, a runoff is required.
President Barack Obama is reevaluating his administration's position, and said he will not be rushed into sending more troops.
How to Trap a President in a Losing War: Petraeus, McChrystal, and the Surgettes Thursday 24 September 2009 by: Tom Engelhardt
Front and center in the debate over the Afghan War these days are General Stanley "Stan" McChrystal, Afghan war commander, whose "classified, pre-decisional" and devastating report -- almost eight years and at least $220 billion later, the war is a complete disaster -- was conveniently, not to say suspiciously, leaked to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post by we-know-not-who at a particularly embarrassing moment for Barack Obama; Admiral Michael "Mike" Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has been increasingly vocal about a "deteriorating" war and the need for more American boots on the ground; and the president himself, who blitzed every TV show in sight last Sunday and Monday for his health reform program, but spent significant time expressing doubts about sending more American troops to Afghanistan. ("I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan... or sending a message that America is here for the duration.")
Who might be trying to rush him?
On the other hand, here's someone you haven't seen front and center for a while: General David Petraeus. He was, of course, George W. Bush's pick to lead the president's last-ditch effort in Iraq. He was the poster boy for Bush's military policies in his last two years. He was the highly praised architect and symbol of "the surge." He appeared repeatedly, his chest a mass of medals and ribbons, for heavily publicized, widely televised congressional testimony, complete with charts and graphs, that was meant, at least in part, for the American public. He was the man who, to use an image from that period which has recently resurfaced, managed to synchronize the American and Baghdad "clocks," pacifying for a time both the home and war fronts.
Not only was the report leaked McCrystal report a possible sign that the miltary/contractor establishment wants to keep the party going in Afghanistan, Englehart says of General Petraeus:
Buyer's Remorse, the Afghan War, and the President
In the midst of all this, between Admiral Mullen and General McChrystal is, it seems, a missing man. The most photogenic general in our recent history, the man who created the doctrine and oversees the war, the man who is now shaping the U.S. Army (and its future plans and career patterns), is somehow, at this crucial moment, out of the Washington spotlight. This last week General Petraeus was, in fact, in England, giving a speech and writing an article for the (London) Times laying out his basic "protect the population" version of counterinsurgency and praising our British allies by quoting one of their great imperial plunderers. ("If Cecil Rhodes was correct in his wonderful observation that 'being an Englishman is the greatest prize in the lottery of life,' and I'm inclined to think that he was, then the second greatest prize in the lottery of life must be to be a friend of an Englishman, and based on that, the more than 230,000 men and women in uniform who work with your country's finest day by day are very lucky indeed, as am I.")
Only at mid-week, with Washington aboil, did he arrive in the capital for a counterinsurgency conference at the National Press Club and quietly "endorse" "General McChrystal's assessment." Whatever the look of things, however, it's unlikely that Petraeus is actually on the sidelines at this moment of heightened tension. He is undoubtedly still The Man.
So much is, of course, happening just beyond the sightlines of those of us who are mere citizens of this country, which is why inference and guesswork are, unfortunately, the order of the day. Read any account in a major newspaper right now and it's guaranteed to be chock-a-block full of senior officials and top military officers who are never "authorized to speak," but nonetheless yak away from behind a scrim of anonymity. Petraeus may or may not be one of them, but the odds are reasonable that this is still a Petraeus Moment.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been described as pushing back against an increase in troops:
US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton offered a blunt reply to the commander in chief of US troops in Afghanistan, general Stanley McChrystal.
Yesterday it emerged that his confidential 66 page report on the ground situation recommended the immediate deployment of further western troops, lacking which they will lose the war against the Taliban "by the end of the year". a few hors later the former first lady reacted with some irritation, adding to president Obama's words: no decision will be taken until an effective strategy is in place. Interviewed by PBS, the public television network, the US Secretary of State first expressed "respect" for the general and his stance, but then added that "I can only say that there are other assessments, drawn up by highly skilled analysts who focused on anti-guerrilla and which say the exact opposite". In the meantime 'The Washington Post', citing confidential sources within the Pentagon, wrote that Robert Gates, the minister of Defence, personally solicited McChrystal to refrain from immediately submitting a request for more troops for Afghanistan, postponing and subjecting it to the completion of the deeper strategic revision supported by Obama.
You go Hillary Clinton, Madame Secretary. Civilian control of the military is more important than ever in this age with the military/contractor cadre is so hugely powerful.
In hind sight, should the President have cleaned house of obvious Bush plants in the Defense Department? Hmmmmm. Will the Secretary of State be able to retain leadership on foreign policy, or will the Generals get that too, by default?
Englehardt:
It's one thing for the leaders of a country to say that war should be left to the generals when suddenly embroiled in conflict, quite another when that country is eternally in a state of war. In such a case, if you turn crucial war decisions over to the military, you functionally turn foreign policy over to them as well. All of this is made more complicated, because the cast of "civilians" theoretically pitted against the military right now includes Karl W. Eikenberry, a retired lieutenant general who is the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Douglas Lute, a lieutenant general who is the president's special advisor on Afghanistan and Pakistan (dubbed the "war czar" when he held the same position in the Bush administration), and James Jones, a retired Marine Corps general, who is national security advisor, not to speak of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
The question is: will an already heavily militarized foreign policy geared to endless global war be surrendered to the generals? Depending on what Obama does, the answer to that question may not be fully, or even largely, clarified this time around. He may quietly give way, or they may, or compromises may be reached behind the scenes. After all, careers and political futures are at stake.
But consider us warned. This is a question that is not likely to go away and that may determine what this country becomes.
We know what a MacArthur moment was; we may find out soon enough what a Petraeus moment is.
Here's to supporting the President as he reassesses Afghanistan policy. Glad that Hillary Clinton is there in his Cabinet.
Where do you stand on this? Trust the Generals, and still hoping for victory in Afghanistan?
Ready for a reassessment, glad to see the President is flexible?
Other? Thanks for your comments, tips and recs.
Update
Congress Presses on War Plan Administration Fends Off Calls for Afghanistan Commander to Testify on Strategy
In a NBC-Wall Street Journal poll conducted between last Thursday and Sunday, 59% of respondents said they were now "less confident" that the war would come to a successful conclusion. Just over half of those polled said they opposed adding more U.S. troops in the country, while more than a third favored an immediate withdrawal.
As public support slips, contractors may be shaking Congress tree as they see profits possibly slipping away?