Should we send more troops? Short and succinct answer: NO. Spelled N-O. Here's what we doing this Saturday in my town. If we agree with the mission, you can organize a similar rally in your town.

In the coming days decisions may be made in Washington that will shape US policy in Afghanistan for years to come. This is a crucial moment for peace activists to make our voices heard and express our commitment to ending the war. Join us in marching in support of a nonviolent resolution of the conflict in Afghanistan. By saying NO to war we say YES to our progressive agenda of environmental and economic justice and healthcare reform. War is not the answer!

I haven't watched this yet, but I like the notion of this pairing.

Done deal.

(CBS) Tonight, after months of conferences with top advisors, President Obama has settled on a new strategy for Afghanistan. CBS News correspondent David Martin reports that the president will send a lot more troops and plans to keep a large force there, long term.

The president still has more meetings scheduled on Afghanistan, but informed sources tell CBS News he intends to give Gen. Stanley McChrystal most, if not all, the additional troops he is asking for.

McChrystal wanted 40,000 and the president has tentatively decided to send four combat brigades plus thousands more support troops. A senior officer says "that's close to what [McChrystal] asked for." All the president's military advisers have recommended sending more troops.

Quoting Wonderment: Done deal.

I believe it when it's announced. Not a week goes by that somebody leaks some rightwing move Obama is supposed to make that he never actually makes. On the other hand, he campaigned on escalating in Afghanistan, so it wouldn't surprise me.

White House Strongly Denies Reports Obama Has Decided On Afghanistan Troop Levels

Christina Bellantoni | November 9, 2009, 9:45PM

The White House is forcefully denying reports that President Obama has settled on the number of troops to send to Afghanistan.

Several stories in recent days have suggested he has made a decision and cite specific troop levels.

Officials have dismissed those as inaccurate, but tonight the White House is sending out a rare statement from National Security Adviser Gen. Jim Jones:

"Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false. He has not received final options for his consideration, he has not reviewed those options with his national security team, and he has not made any decisions about resources. Any reports to the contrary are completely untrue and come from uninformed sources."White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters today the president is holding another Situation Room meeting of his war council as he continues to gather information for his decision.

The Wednesday session in the Situation Room is the eighth such meeting and comes right before Obama travels on Thursday

Maybe. The CBS story, however, has multiple sources. So at the very least some people at very high levels are playing games with the press (and the American people?) Leak; denial; leak; denial.... leak, leak; denial, denial.

Quoting TwinSwords: (Source)

All fucking summer long there was a "Obama to betray liberals and give up on public option (according to anonymous sources)" story every goddam week. And every single one was bullshit. Somehow the people who writes these never get a bad reputation, except for Judith Miller and Ceci Connolly. The almost never even have quotes at all. The reporter could be making it all up. Or turning an intern saying, "I bet they increase troops," into "Sources say troops to increase!"

Listening to these two talk about how a terrorist attack is really not a big deal (unless a nuke is involved) is coffee house level gobbledeegook. Go tell that to the Ft Hood families How we respond is important. The msm seems to be suggesting that the most important thing we can do right now is to make sure that Islam does not in any way receive a public relations hit. According to various reports, the terrorist is alleged to have attempted to contact Al Qaeda, did correspond with a radical cleric in Yemen, placed internet posts glorifying suicide bombers, refused to have his photo taken with women (shades of Atta) told people that beheadings were justified for crimes against Islam, shouted "Allah Akbar" in the manner of the 9/11 terrorists during his cold-blooded killings....etc etc etc, and our Homeland Security Chief, the same clown who has been preaching that right wingers are the biggest domestic danger to the country, says don't use this a vehicle for criticising the religion that spawned it?????? I guess the best that this administration can do to is make sure Hasan has

Quoting harkin: Watch Europe and see our future.

Rant on, Harkin. So far no wacko Muslims have gone on shooting sprees over here.... True, there were the attacks in Madrid and London, but they were in "retaliation" for the participation of Spain and Britain in Bush's war on terror. Retaliation? Does that ring a bell?

They have engaged in bombing sprees though. They also tortured and murdered a French Jew in Paris. They've also planned a number of attacks that have been thwarted (e.g. some attacks in Brussels and a train attack in Germany). They also assassinated a Dutch filmmaker for portraying Islam in a negative light. Muslim youth have also rioted, burning cars and what not. They even burned a Nigerian girl to a crisp in Marseille after setting a public bus on fire. Nevertheless, I think for the most part Europe has done an admirable job with integrating Muslims into their communities. Despite the bigotries of a lot of native Europeans, I'm actually optimistic about Muslim-Europe's future. I think it will come off well in the long run, despite the occaisional bombing, murder, or honor killing. It'll be interesting to bare witness to.

Quoting Lyle: They have engaged in bombing sprees though. They also tortured and murdered a French Jew in Paris. They've also planned a number of attacks that have been thwarted (e.g. some attacks in Brussels and a train attack in Germany). They also assassinated a Dutch filmmaker for portraying Islam in a negative light. Muslim youth have also rioted, burning cars and what not. They even burned a Nigerian girl to a crisp in Marseille after setting a public bus on fire.

Nevertheless, I think for the most part Europe has done an admirable job with integrating Muslims into their communities. Despite the bigotries of a lot of native Europeans, I'm actually optimistic about Muslim-Europe's future. I think it will come off well in the long run, despite the occaisional bombing, murder, or honor killing.

It'll be interesting to bare witness to.

There are tensions, that is true. I don't think the incidents you mention are any more revelatory of Muslims in general than the incident at Fort Hood. In all these cases, we are looking at insanity or depravity or both. The bombings in Madrid and London were by far the worst acts committed by Muslims

We'll just have to disagree on how revelatory such acts of insanity or depravity are. The insanity and depravity, I'd argue, have to have their roots grounded somewhere, and extremist Islam tends to still be fertile grounds for some of these guys. Also, when are these acts never not a retaliation for something? That is always the rational.

Quoting Wonderment: Maybe. The CBS story, however, has multiple sources. So at the very least some people at very high levels are playing games with the press (and the American people?) Leak; denial; leak; denial.... leak, leak; denial, denial.

Agreed. By posting the WH's official denial of the story, I didn't mean to be taking sides, i.e., suggesting that there wasn't merit to the CBS story. I just wanted to provide the latest twist in the story. A couple possible explanations: (1) Someone is floating a trial balloon to assess how much of a reaction a decision to escalate would get from the left. (2) Someone on the pro-escalation side is trying to put pressure on Obama. Of course, there's also: (3) The story is true but the WH didn't want it released yet for whatever reason. Or, alternatively, the story is mostly true but the WH has yet to finalize the details. Who really knows? I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Quoting claymisher: All fucking summer long there was a "Obama to betray liberals and give up on public option (according to anonymous sources)" story every goddam week. And every single one was bullshit. Somehow the people who writes these never get a bad reputation, except for Judith Miller and Ceci Connolly. The almost never even have quotes at all. The reporter could be making it all up. Or turning an intern saying, "I bet they increase troops," into "Sources say troops to increase!"

Exactly. The whole thing is just such a game. Reporters who care more about access than doing their jobs, and "sources" who are constantly using reporters to manipulate public opinion and their institutional adversaries in the bureaucracy.

Or 4 (my pet theory): The decision is in fact made, but they want to slow leak it, taking some of the drama out of the upcoming Big Obama Speech, but not all of it so that it fizzles in a puddle of anticlimax.

Quoting Wonderment: Or 4 (my pet theory): The decision is in fact made, but they want to slow leak it, taking some of the drama out of the upcoming Big Obama Speech, but not all of it so that it fizzles in a puddle of anticlimax.

Ah, yes, good theory.

A little out of context, but this (via) made me think of this diavlog:

By far the fastest way to end the war in Afghanistan would be to ask General McChrystal’s staff to produce a plan to make it deficit neutral and find sixty votes in the senate for his financing plan.

Quoting Francoamerican: Rant on, Harkin. So far no wacko Muslims have gone on shooting sprees over here.

True, there were the attacks in Madrid and London, but they were in "retaliation" for the participation of Spain and Britain in Bush's war on terror.

Oh darn those pesky bombs ruined your point.

Quoting Francoamerican: Retaliation? Does that ring a bell?

No but 'incredibly stupid and myopic' does. So murdering 191 men, women and children and maiming 1,800 in Madrid and 56 murdered and 700 maimed in London was justifiable for seeking to bring peace and freedom to subjegated peoples and oh btw defeating murderous despots and zealots? I'm surprised you even admit that Islamist terrorists struck the busses and trains and havent just closed the circle and blamed it on American B-52s. And I hate to tell you Chef Boyardee but admiting that Hasan was a muslim or calling the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq wars 'against terror' are against the meme being pushed by Obama and the msm. They are really outdoing themselves......Keith Olbermann refuses to use the words jihad, zealot or terrorist to describe Hasan's terror act......but he was happy to apply those words to the

By far the fastest way to end the war in Afghanistan would be to ask General McChrystal’s staff to produce a plan to make it deficit neutral and find sixty votes in the senate for his financing plan.

Ha! "Deficit neutral" only applies to bills that help people, not bills that kill them. Seriously, this is where Republicans have lost all credibility -- always plenty of trillions for war, never a penny for social programs. Republicans: You can regain credibility by opposing military spending too. Build a party inspired by Ron Paul, not Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich or David Frum.

Firstly, I knew Peter Beinart had written about foreign policy! All these years of listening to him field Jonah Goldberg's bemusing rants, I had begun to believe Beinart's foreign policy bona fides were urban legend. It's good to hear him liberated from Goldberg. Here's my quick stab: if I thought Afghanistan was an example of path dependence, and listening to my advisor, Daniel Ellsberg, i would put an overwhelming force in field, crush the Taliban, and then sue for peace on my terms. I'd re-jig provincial responsibilities to give Tallibs more authority. I'd ask for AQ leaders in exchange for an aid package distributed to provinces from the US. I'd take what I can get, and then leave claiming victory.

Of course, there's a "connection" between his religion and his crime. Every act has multiple determinants. That's why human beings are unpredictable and, all too often when they hold supernatural beliefs, a bit crazy as well. But a connection isn't the same as a cause. Retaliation or the desire for revenge is one of the oldest and most universal springs of action. The invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban for harboring Bin Laden was retaliation for 9/11. Similarly, acts of terrorism are acts of retaliation in the eyes of Muslim fanatics who believe in jihad (a word that has several meanings in their religion): retaliation for American foreign policy in the Middle East. If you are unable to understand the difference between explanation and justification, or think that the acts of some fanatics discredit a whole religion, there is really no point in carrying on a discussion.

Quoting Francoamerican: Of course, there's a "connection" between his religion and his crime. Every act has multiple determinants. That's why human beings are unpredictable and, all too often when they hold supernatural beliefs, a bit crazy as well. But a connection isn't the same as a cause.

You are hereby certified as qualified to work for CNN, MSNBC, NPR etc. Please see just the contents of his senior speech at Walter Reed, he himself explains how his religion is going to force himself (and others) to place Allah over country and kill. He even ended with the words "we love death more than you love life" (this should also end the discussion on whether Hasan himself thought he was part of any larger overall goal or war, which many discount and use as some sort of twisted logic to 'prove' he wasn't a terrorist, uh ok). I've also heard the 'experts' say that Hasan was no different than the VaTech and Columbine killers, did those kids layout their reasons for killing beforehand to a group of psychologists, explaining how religion was going to force them to murder? Where you FA only see a connection, a thinking person sees

Quoting harkin: You are hereby certified as qualified to work for CNN, MSNBC, NPR etc.

Please see just the contents of his senior speech at Walter Reed, he himself explains how his religion is going to force himself (and others) to place Allah over country and kill. He even ended with the words "we love death more than you love life" (this should also end the discussion on whether Hasan himself thought he was part of any larger overall goal or war, which many discount and use as some sort of twisted logic to 'prove' he wasn't a terrorist, uh ok).

I've also heard the 'experts' say that Hasan was no different than the VaTech and Columbine killers, did those kids layout their reasons for killing beforehand to a group of psychologists, explaining how religion was going to force them to murder?

Where you FA only see a connection, a thinking person sees a slam dunk cause.?

If you are unable to understand the difference between a cause and a connection, you are clearly not a "thinking person." You didn't even grasp my point, that most human acts are not determined by any one

One quibble Franco. Invading Afghanistan wasn't just retaliation for 9/11 (Clinton's Afghanistan strike is perhaps a better example), but was also a police action to apprehend bin Laden and al Qaeda leadership, and of course to deny al Qaeda its Afghan training bases. So retaliation wasn't the only justification or rational for ending the Taliban's rule in Afghanistan.

That what the British did in their so called two losses in "Afghanistan has been known as a graveyard of empires.." meme that seems to get floated around so often. But Alexander went through there like a hot knife through butter and the empire lasted for how many centuries?

Definitely not. Everyone should read the Hoh resignation letter 10 or 50 more times before discussing further. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf[/url]

That's what the British did in their so called two losses in "Afghanistan has been known as a graveyard of empires.." meme that seems to get floated around so often. But Alexander went through there like a hot knife through butter and the empire lasted for how many centuries?

...If only American presidents could marry Afghan brides?! I just heard on Rachel Maddow, that President Obama has rejected all four options to increase troop levels in Afghanistan, prioritizing the training of local troops. I think Pakistan is the more important priority, and the US needs some clout left over to tackle the larger problem in Pakistan.

Quoting oneplanet: Definitely not. Everyone should read the Hoh resignation letter 10 or 50 more times before discussing further.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf[/url]

Interesting. Thanks for the link. There's a bunch of commentary out there on this letter, unsurprisingly. Two that caught my eye: James Fallows basically agreeing and wholeheartedly admiring, David Quigg annoyed and disagreeing. Quigg's got a bunch more links to others, pro and con, too. I confess to having no clear feeling except a guilty gratitude that I don't have to make the call.

Quoting Wonderment: Or 4 (my pet theory): The decision is in fact made, but they want to slow leak it, taking some of the drama out of the upcoming Big Obama Speech, but not all of it so that it fizzles in a puddle of anticlimax.

Or maybe, there's no way on god's green earth he'll jeopardize his re-election chances. Thank god for Ambassador Eikenberry.

Quoting bjkeefe: There's a bunch of commentary out there on this letter, unsurprisingly. Two that caught my eye: James Fallows basically agreeing and wholeheartedly admiring, David Quigg annoyed and disagreeing. Quigg's got a bunch more links to others, pro and con, too.

I confess to having no clear feeling except a guilty gratitude that I don't have to make the call.

I followed your link to the Quigg article to quell my growing doubts, but Quigg failed the assignment. His argument boils down to this statement:

...it is immoral to throw a country into chaos and then walk away simply because we grow weary of that chaos.

It's a weak argument because (1) we did not throw Afg into chaos any more than 10 other influences have, and (2) the moral scales shift when you have been attacked via Afg. Nor did Quigg's links help. Do you have the feeling that every course of action is wrong? I'm leaning toward doing a gradual drawdown -- starting now. But I'm glad I don't make that call.

Quoting Simon Willard: I followed your link to the Quigg article to quell my growing doubts, but Quigg failed the assignment. His argument boils down to this statement:

...it is immoral to throw a country into chaos and then walk away simply because we grow weary of that chaos.

I took that as his main point, too.

It's a weak argument because (1) we did not throw Afg into chaos any more than 10 other influences have, and (2) the moral scales shift when you have been attacked via Afg.

I don't find it a weak argument. It has great resonance to me, matter of fact. Yes, I agree that Afghanistan was not exactly happy furry puppy time before we invaded it in 2001. However, I think, first, that our culpability extends well back into the previous century, not least of which involves our supporting in-country elements that proved to be destabilizing as part of our efforts to harass the Soviet Union. I think, second, that it's largely moot who else might have contributed in the past to Afghanistan's disruptions. The point is, we own the problem now. We can either stay and deal with it (fix it, ideally, but unlikely) or decide that it's not something we're

Quoting bjkeefe: However, I think, first, that our culpability extends well back into the previous century, not least of which involves our supporting in-country elements that proved to be destabilizing as part of our efforts to harass the Soviet Union.

You are right. I had unfairly discounted this.

Quoting bjkeefe: From my uninformed point of view, I guess part of what I'd like to see is what Bob Wright proposed the other day -- a "pilot program" of sorts that would indicate whether or not we can even demonstrate proof of concept in whatever counter[X] approach we decide (have decided?) on.

I don't take this seriously because the Taliban are fluid. I assume the pilot is geographically localized. It may succeed because of this localization, only to fail when the Taliban feels like moving in.

Quoting bjkeefe: If we can't get both of these, than I'm with you on favoring withdrawal, and I guess I'd go further and ask that it be done sooner rather than later. No point in continuing to waste money, let alone young people's lives, not to mention further irritating the people who live there, if we're not going to be accomplishing anything.

I think I would continue to hang around as a

Or maybe, there's no way on god's green earth he'll jeopardize his re-election chances. Thank god for Ambassador Eikenberry.

I'm not that optimistic. I think (speculating wildly) that Obama just asked someone to write up the strong dissent (a smart move). Now the whole rest of the gang, including Clinton, Gates, McCrystal and cronies will "refute" it, however It also serves to put added pressure on Karzi to be a better puppet. "Look, I love you Karzhi, but I lot of people are telling you to dump you, so just remember you won't always get everything you want." Karzhi: "Yes dad, I'm really grateful for those 35,000 extra troops. I'll be a really good boy now and do whatever you and mom want."

Quoting Simon Willard: You are right. I had unfairly discounted this.

Thanks for acknowledging.

I don't take this seriously because the Taliban are fluid. I assume the pilot is geographically localized. It may succeed because of this localization, only to fail when the Taliban feels like moving in.

That may be, and I would for sure not conclude from a successful pilot program, "Okay, now just multiply by 10 or 100 and problem solved!" However, I would say, first, if we can't even make a pilot program work, we can be pretty sure that anything larger will be even less likely to work. (Your Eisenhowerism below notwithstanding.) Second, I would say that a successful pilot program would probably teach us some things for the next step, and would also serve as a confidence builder. Even if skeptics said, "All you did was chase the Taliban into the next county," you'd have a bunch of people in the current "county" who were thinking, "You know, things actually are measurably better, thanks to these Americans." A lot of times, a little bit of success helps breed more.

I think I would continue to hang around as a smaller force to strike at obvious Taliban training camps (if they still do that), or other obvious military build-ups.

Yes, I assume

This sorta-shorter from Riley Waggaman cuts awfully close to the bone:

Afghanistan…What to do in Afghanistan? Uh, let’s just go with the same strategy the Russians used, and then add a few sprinkles of Donald Rumsfeld for pizazz. [Matt Yglesias]

(I say "sorta-shorter" because it's not something MY is advocating, just examining. A worthwhile link to click.)

... thanks to Adam Serwer:

With challenger Abdullah Abdullah dropping out of November's runoff election, Afghan president Hamid Karzai was effectively reelected to a second term last Monday, evidence, world observers said, that Afghanistan has become a shining beacon of democracy, theocracy, autocracy, and authoritarianism in an otherwise troubled region.

Quoting bjkeefe: As to the Taliban and their influence in Afghanistan, that's something where I'd want to know, do the Afghan people generally want our help in suppressing the Taliban or not? Would they like if we just pushed them off into one corner, maybe? Would they rather just have a little training and intelligence support, and take care of the rest of the problem themselves? Or what?

Seems to me you can't expect an answer to these questions. Afghans seem to blow with the wind, week-to-week, depending on where they see the advantage. There seems to be little evidence of adherence to principle. Only tribal allegiances are strong. If we propose to baby-sit, they will consent, but what's the point of that?

Quoting Simon Willard: Seems to me you can't expect an answer to these questions. Afghans seem to blow with the wind, week-to-week, depending on where they see the advantage. There seems to be little evidence of adherence to principle. Only tribal allegiances are strong. If we propose to baby-sit, they will consent, but what's the point of that?

I'm not saying it would be easy to find out, but I would like to see a serious effort put into trying to get an answer. I'm not sure I buy that "they're just tribal" CW. Seems too pat.

Quoting bjkeefe: Second, I would say that a successful pilot program would probably teach us some things for the next step, and would also serve as a confidence builder. Even if skeptics said, "All you did was chase the Taliban into the next county," you'd have a bunch of people in the current "county" who were thinking, "You know, things actually are measurably better, thanks to these Americans." A lot of times, a little bit of success helps breed more.

NYT story represents one data point, possibly supporting the Wright pilot program argument.

Quoting Simon Willard: NYT story represents one data point, possibly supporting the Wright pilot program argument.

Thanks for that. I agree, a sign of hope, and possibly, evidence to support the idea of starting small.

Quoting Wonderment: I'm not that optimistic. I think (speculating wildly) that Obama just asked someone to write up the strong dissent (a smart move). Now the whole rest of the gang, including Clinton, Gates, McCrystal and cronies will "refute" it, however

It also serves to put added pressure on Karzi to be a better puppet. "Look, I love you Karzhi, but I lot of people are telling you to dump you, so just remember you won't always get everything you want."

Karzhi: "Yes dad, I'm really grateful for those 35,000 extra troops. I'll be a really good boy now and do whatever you and mom want."

Well, I stink at chess, too.

(Part 1) Remember Eli's article from last year? http://http://www.tnr.com/article/contra-expectations

...and to understand the intellectual DNA of the Obama approach to counterterrorism--you need to review the careers of Richard Clarke and Rand Beers.

Both Clarke and Beers are lifelong national security bureaucrats who left the Bush administration in protest of the Iraq war. Both have offered private advice to Obama and might well hold top posts in his war cabinet. Clarke helped draft the campaign's counterterrorism strategy, and Beers contributed ideas for his August 1, 2007 counterterrorism speech. Both also have the trust of the party's antiwar base and have, in many ways, articulated the Democratic Party's most substantive critique of Bush's war on terrorism.

From some of their criticism of the Bush administration, you might think them soft-power squishes. But, during their careers, they have never expressed much hesitation about working with proxy armies with less than admirable human rights records. During the Clinton administration, Beers served as the assistant secretary of state for international narcotics and law enforcement affairs, a bureau known as "drugs and thugs." In that post, he helped conceive Plan Colombia, which has, over the last eight years, funneled about $5.5 billion to

(Part 2) Susan Rice and Anthony Lake, two of Obama's advisors during the campaign, were members of the Princeton Project. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Projecthttp:// Steve Clemons facilitates a Princeton Project showcase:
http://http://www.thewashingtonnote....ves/001661.php

The project was co-chaired by former Secretary of State George Shultz and former National Security Advisor Anthony Lake. Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs Dean Anne-Marie Slaughter and Woodrow Wilson School Professor G. John Ikenberry co-directed the effort.

David Rubenstein of the Carlyle Group and the Ford Foundation funded it.

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz

Meanwhile Shultz's attention was increasingly diverted from the domestic economy to the international arena. He participated in an international monetary conference in Paris in 1973, which grew out of the 1971 decision to abolish the gold standard, a decision that Shultz and Paul Volcker had supported (see Nixon Shock). The conference formally abolished the Bretton Woods system, thereby causing all currencies to float. Shultz resigned shortly before Nixon to return to private life.[4]

[George Shultz left office on January 20, 1989, but continues to be
a strategist for the Republican Party.[citation needed] He was an advisor for George W. Bush's presidential campaign during the 2000 election, and senior member of the so-called "The Vulcans", a group of policy mentors for Bush which also included among its members Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and