Comments on: Clinton on MTP: Afghanistan http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/07/26/clinton-on-mtp-afghanistan/ Wed, 05 Jan 2011 21:59:36 -0600 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: macaquerman http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/07/26/clinton-on-mtp-afghanistan/#comment-11768 macaquerman Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:28:32 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/07/26/clinton-on-mtp-afghanistan/#comment-11768 <p>goodness gracious</p> goodness gracious

]]> By: Spencer Ackerman http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/07/26/clinton-on-mtp-afghanistan/#comment-11767 Spencer Ackerman Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:23:07 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/07/26/clinton-on-mtp-afghanistan/#comment-11767 <p>These last two comments are ugly. Consider yourselves on notice.</p> <p>[<em>The comments were removed by the moderator.</em>]</p> These last two comments are ugly. Consider yourselves on notice.

[The comments were removed by the moderator.]

]]> By: Elliott http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/07/26/clinton-on-mtp-afghanistan/#comment-11763 Elliott Sun, 26 Jul 2009 17:08:49 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/07/26/clinton-on-mtp-afghanistan/#comment-11763 <p>There’s <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608" rel="nofollow">a netcast up, and transcript</a>.</p> There’s a netcast up, and transcript.

]]> By: mikeyhemlok http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/07/26/clinton-on-mtp-afghanistan/#comment-11762 mikeyhemlok Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:57:11 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/07/26/clinton-on-mtp-afghanistan/#comment-11762 <p>Cogent analysis. You’re absolutely right.</p> <p>And really, it’s even more muddled than that.</p> <p>The statement that absent the Obama administration’s escalation the message would be that we were “leaving the field” to al Quaeda is just disingenuous. All our legitimate counter terror operations against al Quada MUST amount to more than that, and I somehow doubt al Quaeda leadership felt we had left the field to them.</p> <p>The Secretary says <em>…the Taliban, which is, as I believe strongly, part of a terrorist syndicate with al-Qaeda at the center.</em>. Shouldn’t she be required to offer some kind of data supporting this statement? What attacks have the Taliban been responsible for, what nations are they operating in, how are they contributing to global terror operations? This whole “terrorist syndicate” construct is a convenient falsehood designed to turn a law enforcement problem into a military problem.</p> <p>But ok. Suppose it all works out. Terrorist organizations have a long history of moving to a friendlier location when things become unpleasant for them. If we were successful in eliminating their access to AfPak, why would anyone believe this would “defeat” them? Why would they not just move to Somalia or Yemen or some other more friendly environment? If they do, will we go to war there too? If not, why not?</p> <p>mikey</p> Cogent analysis. You’re absolutely right.

And really, it’s even more muddled than that.

The statement that absent the Obama administration’s escalation the message would be that we were “leaving the field” to al Quaeda is just disingenuous. All our legitimate counter terror operations against al Quada MUST amount to more than that, and I somehow doubt al Quaeda leadership felt we had left the field to them.

The Secretary says …the Taliban, which is, as I believe strongly, part of a terrorist syndicate with al-Qaeda at the center.. Shouldn’t she be required to offer some kind of data supporting this statement? What attacks have the Taliban been responsible for, what nations are they operating in, how are they contributing to global terror operations? This whole “terrorist syndicate” construct is a convenient falsehood designed to turn a law enforcement problem into a military problem.

But ok. Suppose it all works out. Terrorist organizations have a long history of moving to a friendlier location when things become unpleasant for them. If we were successful in eliminating their access to AfPak, why would anyone believe this would “defeat” them? Why would they not just move to Somalia or Yemen or some other more friendly environment? If they do, will we go to war there too? If not, why not?

mikey

]]> By: marc http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/07/26/clinton-on-mtp-afghanistan/#comment-11761 marc Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:54:46 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/07/26/clinton-on-mtp-afghanistan/#comment-11761 <p>It’s been nearly nine years now and the U.S. and NATO have spent about a billion dollars paying private security contractors to train Afghan police forces. There is almost nothing so far to show for the effort. Do we press the reset button on this and if so how long can we expect the “hold” and “build” aspect will take to get off the ground. Is the Afghan government really on board with all this?</p> It’s been nearly nine years now and the U.S. and NATO have spent about a billion dollars paying private security contractors to train Afghan police forces. There is almost nothing so far to show for the effort. Do we press the reset button on this and if so how long can we expect the “hold” and “build” aspect will take to get off the ground. Is the Afghan government really on board with all this?

]]>