Biden Afghanistan Plan Gaining Traction In Obama White House

nytimes.com:

WASHINGTON -- President Obama is exploring alternatives to a major troop increase in Afghanistan, including a plan advocated by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to scale back American forces and focus more on rooting out Al Qaeda there and in Pakistan, officials said Tuesday.

Read the whole story: nytimes.com

Comments

[research]

So you birthers want Biden as President?

[JXJASON]

The blogger, Hamletsmill, has some very good ideas.

Send this article to you members of Congress.

[ImissBush]

talk them 2 death??

[ChampLessFuzzy]

Most comments from NYT (ES) tend to support VP Biden's vision, or the president listen to our VP. I do also. I trust Mr. Biden and I believe many here still do not know of his experience, background, capacity for critical thinking, brilliance in foreign policy, among other impressive mulitple talents. To that I say, too bad. We can be lazy in learning of others, and depend on MSM, detractors, whomever, to force-feed us our opinions of public figures rather than take the time to do a bit of research ourselves.

That said, one of the top "editor selections" communicates my feelings well...

"President Obama, please listen to VP Biden. Probably one of the underestimated brilliant minds in the administration, Mr. Biden has the gift of stepping back to see the whole picture, including this region. He acknowledges impact, present and future, on all people and each country. Talk with, listen to your vice president, especially his genuine thoughts regarding foreign policy. Neither hawk nor dove, I trust Joe Biden's judgement.­"

If the commenter were on HP, I would fan ;-)

[SparkyDash]

Good to see you, Champ. I always enjoy your posts, and today I especially am in agreement of Mr. Biden. You have taken time where most do not; an all-too-rare activity I'm afraid. Today I needed to read this, so thanks.

You never give up...I would fan you again if it were only possible. :-)

[QuanticoCat]

Have you guys noticed that Obama seems to be screwing EVERYTHING up?

[kid5rivers2]

Yes ---everything that NEEDS to be so treated.

[dadw5boys]

how does it feel to be wrong about everything ?

[SEQUOIABISON]

From this progressive liberals point of view, more screw ups please Mr President. Finally a President of by and for the people, instead of a President of by and for the corporation and the munitions industry.
So nice to see the conservatives squirming and complaining, and even better yet it is so nice that they are on the outside looking in.

[Coolheaded]

Yet another example of how not to win a conflict. Obama couldn't coach a winning football team let alone fight a real war. He depends on his subversive surrogates (community organizati­ons/modern terrorists) to do his dirty work.

[austin4]

Confucius say: If you have nothing to say,,,,,say nothing

[Boodah5]

Times up! Play period is over. Time for all neanderthal repubs to return to their caves.

[thegreatstu]

Please recite 1,000 times the above post from austin4...

[thegreatstu]

Either listen to the Generals, or remove all troops, it is that easy. We are America...­We have the most technologically advanced military in the world, not to mention the most powerful. Playing silly little fvck fvck games with our soldiers does nothing but condemn them to defeat. It is simple; we are all in, or all out. We played this game in the 60’s and 70’s and it cost us 45,000 Americans, this is not the time to recreate that disaster. Shrub took his eye off the ball and seven years later we are nowhere. Obama needs to commit or quit. Either way, he needs to be a leader and make a command decision.

[thegreatstu]

Either listen to the Generals, or remove all troops, it is that easy. We are America...­We have the most technologically advanced military in the world, not to mention the most powerful. Playing silly little games with our soldiers does nothing but condemn them to defeat. It is simple; we are all in, or all out. We played this game in the 60’s and 70’s and it cost us 45,000 Americans, this is not the time to recreate that disaster. Shrub took his eye off the ball and seven years later we are nowhere. Obama needs to commit or quit. Either way, he needs to be a leader and make a command decision.

[dadw5boys]

If the U.S. Military is fighting Terrorist -- guess what ?

The Terrorist left for Paskistan long ago .

The U.S. is in the middle of an Afgan civil war and on the wrong side.

The Taliban are not Terrorist

[LittleOldLadyWho]

Hey, I'm on a live town hall session with my Senator! Hurray, our voices are being heard!

[C0Y0TE2]

".....Yes this country was built postwar on liberal values; but we rebelled against these values as the baby boomers of the sixties and seventies displayed liberal excess. The Neocon movement was in response to that.

Now that the neocon movement has failed what is next? I believe in a renewal of classical and tempered liberalism. What is your vision?
(the first film in this series examines this issue;The power of Nightmares)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727#

~
Weirdwriter: "Please name the "liberal excess" that still has your tail in a knot. As opposed, of course, to the "conservative excess" I can easily name such as unregulated "free markets," a predatory lending system, lack of health care for all who can't pay for it, etc. etc.

~
It is NOT my tail in a knot dearWeird, but the opinions of the political experts who made the BBC films I am recommending you watch to get an idea of where we came from and how we got here.

[Andrea Castillo]

AUGH. Nothing says "I have no grasp of the history, scope and effects of federal budgetary policy and local community ordinances on basic economic processes" than blaming the unregulated free market.

Unregulated? The US has the MOST regulated market than it has throughout the entirety of its existence.

Why do you insist that the market was anywhere near resembling "unregulated"?

[BradSmith]

We have regulation and then deregulation. First we allow regulation to the point were near monopolies are created and then we deregulate. We then blame the free market and deregulation for the problems caused by the regulations. Twisted isn't it?

[C0Y0TE2]

pu ---pu---pu---prove it...huh..­....huh...­..huh

Listening to 2002 disco

[austin4]

So the Depression last year was caused by to much regulation? You can't be that naive

[C0Y0TE2]

WHAT IS YOUR VISION?

[C0Y0TE2]

What do YOU see?
I see a renewal of classical and tempered liberalism.

[SassySafrine]

I see Russia from my house.

[SassySafrine]

20/20

[ConservativeHippie]

Good enough to legally drive with no restrictions on a CDL but not necessarily clear enough to avoid running over mangy@sscoyotes when they cross the roads at night.

[maigesheng]

I really liked reading "there are alot of competing views'

[foxinretreat]

Greatlardi­ni..... We will work this out, I promise !!! Laur got game!!!!

[greatlardini]

I thought I found it in Fa.ce.bo.ok. I followed your instructions with the "ie" after "r", and whitt.led it down to people with your name in Chicago. I'm glad Laur got game, 'cause Stevie doesn't tonight!

[foxinretreat]

Look for the matronly mother of the bride coral dress, still Laur got game

[greatlardini]

p.s.--you'­re a saint.

[C0Y0TE2]

So, does anyone believe in a renewal of classical and tempered liberalism?

[AtomicSplash]

do you believe classic coke isn't just coke?

[C0Y0TE2]

Can I put you down as a NO?

[SassySafrine]

Class Coke is the ONLY coke.

[LittleOldLadyWho]

There is no coke other than Classic Coca Cola!

[iLoveOldNY]

We didn't attack Afghanistan, we attacked the terrorists. I say that because it wasn't an attack on the recognized country, just the terror group that was in that country. Now, if we go fight terrorists in pakistan, we will be doing the same thing there - not the country, but the terrorist cells.

Everyone can accept the fact that if we bail on Afghanistan, the terror cells will completely infiltrate the government, and the country will be officially a terrorist run country. I personally feel that it will be easier to fight a country, then it is to fight select individuals in that country. This may be the rock and the hard place that Afghans need to fight the Taliban - because until now, it has been merely an economic one. If you choose to go against the taliban, then it will be economically unfavorable for you. If you make it the life and death issue that it is, I'm not so sure the citizens of that country will be so quick to enable a terrorist cell - for all the money in the world. Full scale war against the US is not so easy to stomach.

If you think this post is extreme, just consider the alternative.

[BradSmith]

**Everyone can accept the fact that if we bail on Afghanistan, the terror cells will completely infiltrate the government, and the country will be officially a terrorist run country**.

Actually not everone believes that nor is it true. We could negotiate a peace with the talib_an and the northern allience, under which we have UN inspections and demands similar to Iraq after the first gulf war.

[iLoveOldNY]

You say it's not true, doesn't make it not true. We have been negotiating peace with the Northern Alliance and this is where we stand today. With the help of the NA, the taIiban went from controlling 20% of the country to 80%. If you don't accept those stats as them now controlling the government there, then I don't know what else to tell you.

Also you are under the impression that the taIiban will one day denounce sh@ri@ law, which defines who they are.

[dadw5boys]

The Taliban are not the terrorist !

[canarypapers]

Aside from the fact that this post's title contradicts the actual content of the NYT article -- "Mr. Obama rejected Mr. Biden’s approach in March, and it is not clear that it has more traction this time" -- this is 3-day old news!

How about some questions and answers? For instance:

Gen. McChrystal said that if Obama doesn't send more troops, the war "will likely result in failure." What is the General's realistic definition of "success" in this 8-year-old "Operation Enduring Freedom," given the complexities of the geographical, political and cultural terrain in Afghanistan?

Since al Qaeda long ago abandoned Afghanistan, AND since a surge-like strategy is not feasible in Afghanistan (because there is no equivalent to Baghdad in Afghanistan, and, more importantly, the Taliban cannot be put on the U.S. payroll, as were the Sunnis in Iraq, who were paid to stop killing U.S. troops) the question bears asking: What, specifically, does Gen. McChrystal plan to do with the additional 28,000 troops that can't be accomplished with the existing 140,000 troops?

Is there something to be learned from this war? Specifically: When criminal acts are committed by a small tribe embedded in a country, do we retaliate by committing war against an entire citizenry? Or do we handle it as a police matter, apprehending the criminals and bringing them to justice -- a matter that would involve substantially less than 168,000 troops and the loss of tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent lives?

[BradSmith]

Great post. I wonder if you believe we should negotiate with the Taliban?

[BradSmith]

Great post. I wonder if you believe we should negotiate with the Talib_an?

[research]

End the

Energy Wars!

close 90% of the 1000 bases, end all the wars, come home and install 3 cent rooftop solar and Waste/sewage BioChar carbon negative fuels, clean, safe and forever. see my profile.

[SassySafrine]

No.

[research]

Afraid of enlightenment???