Outstanding guests Tom (and OnPoint staff). This should prove to be a fascinating discussion.

Why did we invade Iraq?
What was the real motive between 1992-1996?

ps. There was only one reason between 1992-1996, until the cheerleaders established PNAC at the end of 1996 and wrapped an American Flag around overthrowing (regime-change/domino crap) Saddam.

Saddam (mayor of Baghdad) has never been a danger to USA. He was just a nuisance to a little country in the Middle East.

Enough is Enough. We are not in the Middle East.
Time to be Neutral. Time to believe in Justice!

We need to make wars harder to start, with increased accountability. There is a time and place for military action, and these last two wars don’t make the cut.

1. Go back to declarations of war. No more police actions or use of force authorizations. Make congress debate it and be held responsible. It should be HARD to do, not easy.

2. Consider some sort of general conscription. Too many people don’t have a serious stake in these conflicts. People might feel differently if their dollars AND their kin were at stake.

3. Downsize our military and our presence in places like Germany and Japan. We outspend China 100-1 on our military. Take a more defensive stance and use that money elsewhere.

We are currently so overextended and so inconsistent. If we are in Iraq and Afghanistan to defeat Al Qaeda, then why aren’t we in the Phillipines, Sudan, or Somalia? Let’s not even mention Saudi Arabia.

Analyzing our illegal military presence in Afghanistan is very easy:

1)))))))
If he had the choice (he actually does) which one will Benjamin Nethenyahu will pick:
a) endless US involvement in Afghanistan that benefits Israel in dozens of way
b) US pulling out of Afghanistan, starting today.

2)))))))
Which one Richard Halbrook’s mother would pick?

3)))))))
How about Richard Halbrook – the Top Civilian Policy Maker who would do anything to please his Mom.

4)))))))
Extend this to logic Rahm Emanuel – who appointed Halbrook to Afghanistan/Pakistan

We are Screwed!!!

If the military is a convenient way to provide jobs and training in an economy losing jobs, why not switch that offering to something more diplomatic, more along the lines of the Peace Corps? When I heard the goals in Afghanistan switch to boosting the Afghan institutions and economy to a more American model, I thought soldiers are not the way. Nor is sending “contractors” as was done at huge cost in Iraq. Huge monies were thrown at any American (including me) to go and start-up virtually anything; Congress had approved it, and “small” enterprises were supposed to be a certain proportion. “Please go. The pot of gold is here.”
We need more regular Americans first-hand knowing the language, the mores,, customs, the limitations; and more Afghans (and Pakistanis) seeing us without helmets and guns. Then we won’t make such fools of ourselves.

Ali Frazier in Manilla. A metaphor for our war in Af/Pack. Guess which role Our country is in!

Brzezinski told Carter that Russian invasion in Afghanistan was an opportunity to give Russians their Vietnam. That strategy proved to be successful against the USSR. I wonder if some Russian adviser is not saying the same thing to Putin right about now.

The statement that unless trops are committed then there will be mission failure; begs the question, “Is the mission incorrectly defined?”

I believe that the mission is incorrectly defined. As I have read, the mission is to establish a highly centralized government on a dispersed, tribal structure, and diverse cultural context. Centralized governance does not fit the context.

I really wish that discussions of Afghanistan and Pakistan were more informed by a knowledge of the culture and histories of both countries, not to say the many subtleties of different Taliban factions, tribal factions, and Al Qaeda’s interests. While Ellsberg does mention previous international actions in Afghanistan, he seems totally unaware of what is different now. I am not a great supporter of this war but I do know that the greatest current threat is what could happen to Pakistan and how this could affect dozens of other countries from the US to China. I have little hope that the US will find the correct strategy but let’s at least identify all the issues involved, all the players involved, and the pros and cons of all the types of possible military and civilian actions by the US and other countries.

I thought we were in Afghanistan because an attack in the US was orchestrated from there. The comparison to Vietnam is erroneous. Vietnam never attacked us.

The United States cannot do or be all things for all people. Nation Building is done by those nations who want to build themselves and not by surrogates.

If Bin Laden is the objective. Let Special Operations do the job.

As a former member of the 3d Special Forces a long time ago I am certain that if a notice was put on a bulletin at Ft. Bragg asking for volunteers the line would stretch around the block.

No more drones, no more killing of innocent people, no more wasting and destruction of America’s Treasure, its people and its resources.

Respectfully,

Webb Nichols

Were are those Republicans and others who say are concern about cost when it comes to health reform? Listening to this debate about Afganistan or in fact any other war make me feel like being in another country. Were are the fiscal conservative?

Can anyone PLEASE answer me how come there is always money for war/wars, even the unnecessary ones, but there is no money to provide health care for all the people?

Maybe those profiting on wars earn even more than insurance companies?

The building of a pipe line was mentioned, then ignored. I am surprised that the blindness and silence on this point continues. We deserve a real discussion as to why we are in this part of the world, and exactly why Americans and other are fighting and dying.

We need to learn from History. “You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it.”
- Ho Chi Minh quote

In my opinion, the solution for peace in Afganistan and Iraq need to come from the people in those countries with some direction from the outside. I’d rather see less killing, but not freedom in the press or a one party system, than forcing democracy on a country while people are randomly killed continually. It’s great that Saddam and the Taliban leaders aren’t running those countries anymore, but it’s unfortunate that Bush had no idea how to “win the peace”.

Does anyone in the current administration listen to the United States Institue of Peace? http://www.usip.org/ Please read the report Iraq Study Group Report! http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/index.html This was written by people who understood the IRA and South Africa, but clearly no two conflicts are the same and the authors know that.

I think the factor that people need to remember is that some people don’t want wars to end – they make too much money from selling weapons.

I don’t think that there is a military solution. The allies should build widget factories to get money into the hands of the people and create an economy

Is there any update to what Sarah Chayes is trying to do in Afghanistan?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17096117
“December 10, 2007

After former NPR reporter Sarah Chayes reported on the fall of the Taliban in 2001, she decided to stay in Afghanistan as the country was being rebuilt. In 2005, she established the Arghand Cooperative, a business that sells local products for use in perfumes, soaps and food.”

The proper question is not whether our “mission” (in quotes because we haven’t even defined it) will fail without more troops but whether it will succeed if we send more bodies at the problem. We certainly should not unquestioningly accept the recommendations of a military establishment that hasn’t been able to win a military conflict of any importance for over 60 years.

Get Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod out of the White House.

Bring in Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader and Ramsey Clark.

Listen to Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul (mostly on foreign policty).

Clean up the corrupt top brass (3-4 layers) at the top of military food chain.

Why are people who

a. cheered Obama during the debates, when Obama criticized Bush for taking his eye off the ball and moving troops to Iraq from Afghanistan, and

b. nodded their heads when Obama promised pulling out of Iraq and adding forces in Afghanistan

now suddenly talking about Afghanistan being an unjust war?

Why are these people so fickle-minded who can’t make up their minds or analyze situations correctly, and why should we listen to them?

If people are anti-war, why did they vote for Obama in spite of b., and not for Nader or Green Party or other candidates like Ron Paul, who, unlike Obama, were unequivocal about their position and anti-war stance?

Where is the moral compass of these people (Obama voters) and why do they keep shifting goalposts?

Look in the mirror first, and as Gandhi said, be the change you want to see in the world. We can indulge in all kinds and different levels of intellectual masturbat1on but it all comes down to who we vote for – because that’s the only time we have a say and a choice.

Unfortunately, Ron Paul ran as a Republican. I seriously doubt that, if elected, he could have maintained his independence from the GOP leadership, its base and contributors. I did not vote in the Republican primary, nor would I do so. If he had been an Independent I would have given him a try.

This show was so disappointing I had to turn it off. The big mistake in Vietnam was letting “experts” from the last war frame the issues we had to face. The French had the same problem with the Maginot Line.

The military frame for this war — or any war — is not “how many troops” but “what are they doing?” and “in what type of social setting are they doing it?” Anyone who took the time to read the details of The Surge in Iraq discovered that the key to success — such as it was — lay in changing what the troops were doing, and then, once they had constructive rather than destructive tasks, getting more of them out there doing it.

I paid professional attention to Afghanista’s struggles with the Soviets, and, to some extent, their success against the British Empire a century earlier. There is no comparison between that country’s sociology, demography and terrain and those same elements in Vietnam’s. In that war, as with Iraq, I was indeed a protester. I thank Daniel Ellsberg for his work. But Afghanistan is not the same war, not the same as either country, and not even a member of the same world.

Wisdom for this war will come out of the people fighting and living through it, not old-timers reliving our/their glory days as protesters.

Ms Lilya,

Could you please explain why are you so Anti-Israel?

Israel has been a strong ally of US in the Middle-East, unlike the Saudis who despite our friendliness towards them (thanks to our oil-addiction) they have been always hostile (remember the day 9/11/2001?).

Why are you so Anti Israel? Please support your view.

The function of the military is to engage and subdue the enemy. It is not to win “the heart and minds” of a foreign populace. It is not equipped or trained to do such. That is an entirely different proposition. We can commit our military to support those who do do that job, but no more. Trying to force a round military into this square hole will defeat will frustrate the military and result in a failure to achieve the mission. We should have learned this from previous encounters, from our Revolution to Vietnam. The military mission is to destroy the enemy not mold a nation. The U.S. military is great at the former and but cannot be expected to perform the latter function.

Millard-Fillmore,

Speaking for myself, Kucinich was my ideal choice but I gave in to the “he can’t win” mentality. After seeing what Obama and the dems are doing with healthcare (nothing), I won’t make that mistake again.

As far as Afghanistan, I imagine lot’s of folks who are anti-war just made the call that McCain/Palin would be a worse choice than Obama. You are ultimately right about voting your conscience, but most of us don’t have the “stones” to walk the walk Gandhi did. Given time and continuation however, we might “grow some”.

Great guests & discussion.

We’ve been in Afghanistan 8 years & used a poor strategy thanks to GWB/RC/Rummy. Despite their long lengths [e.g., Sri Lanka] guerilla wars work on their own clock like more conventional wars. To now use an effective strategy cannot make up for the 8 years of neglect, bad strategy & civilian deaths.

As Col. Wilkerson said in the first few minutes, not only can we not supply troops for Afghanistan & Iraq for 5-10 years duration, but there’s no expectation that the citizens of both nations will simply kick us out when they’re tired of having us on their territory.

Afghanistan has long expelled invaders & they’ve always had to negotiate among themselves to settle their conflicts. They will do that sooner if we leave sooner.

And let’s not repeat the Diem mistake from Vietnam with Karzai in Afghanistan.

Listening to Col. Wilkerson is great, as he learned the lesson from Vietnam. Wars always end by some form of negotiation.

With respect to Ms. Chayes whose updates are so great, she has long advised that negotiation among the local factions is the only way to end the conflict. If the Afghans elect a central government that’s accepted by all, it’s one thing, but we can’t make them do so on our timetable.

We must learn that we cannot invade countries without a large cadre of civilian & military linguists, soldiers & development aides.

@ this point, even in the world economic war, most of our Mandarin or Cantonese speakers are from the Chinese diaspora, not those who learned either as a 2nd or 3rd language for their career.

Obama’s campaigning as to getting out of Iraq, focusing on Afghanistan. He said we had taken our eye off the ball. By the time Obama was in office, we were hearing of al Kaida shifting towards Somalia. And the political situation in Pakistan had been changing by the month, a big factor.
I would be a lot less happy if we had a president who could not shift positions according to shifting circumstances.
I am unhappy that though his grassroots support in his election seemed to come from individuals like me, less from interest groups, the upcoming elections for congressional seats and 1/3 of the Senate are crucial to his efforts, and succeeding in 2010 is vastly more complex given diversity of constituencies.
I don’t think Obama’s going to lose his sense of direction, but we don’t always know why he uses this strategy or that. Who’s bending his ear now? So I am definitely not going in lock step, yes master, no master. Me and lots of others, I note. A leader is only as good as his base.

I couldn’t agree more, Ellen Dibble. As political climates and power structures shift around the world, I would be much more wary of a president who espouses a particular strategy that is unchanging. For too long we have had leaders who have suffered from a kind of cognitive dissonance (and this psychological affliction seems to have reached pandemic levels in our society). It remains to be seen how Obama will fare in handling all of the challenges he faces–and perhaps ultimately he will fail–but I do feel he generally approaches decisions in problem-solving mode.

The more military leaders weigh in, and the more we look realistically at Afghanistan’s determined responses to occupation, historically, the less it seems that committing more troops in traditional roles is a reasonable course of action. This emerging line of reasoning, I suppose, is what millard-fillmore considers to be lacking a ‘moral compass.’ If so, I would take a lack of ‘moral compass’ over cognitive dissonance, anytime!

We need to learn from history. Many wars before, “everybody loose nobody wins” War is a bussines created for profit. A lot of VIP People, business men {Wellknow} To sell armament, put 120,000. contractors, sell fuel for the navy. army vehicles, airplanes, aircraft carriers, armament, amunition, etc,etc.
Just let’s put ourselves in Agfganistan’s people case “If Canada or Mexico will invade U.S.A. what will we do, wouldn’t we defend at any risk our land. What did they do to us? 70% of what we know throug the press, specially CNN and Fox News was a hoax, just lies and may the american citizens, what really happens on 911. The Bush administration need to have an excuse to attack. Still there are intalligent people in USA. Thank You and Congratulations TOM.

Don’t understand. Why WBUR/OnPoint is blocking postings that are critical of Israel.

Constantly getting 500 Error for certain postings

Can anybody dispute this?

The easiest and cheapest way of getting out of Aghanistan ($140,000,000,000.00/year) is to find out what really happened on the day of Sept 11, 2001.

The highest ROI (Return On Investment) since Adam and Eve).

We spent the past six years proving the largest military power in the world can’t control a country the size of the state of Texas in a volatile area of the world. All along the way emboldening our enemies and alienating our allies. In our misguided attempt to control Iraq, the United States has wasted billions of dollars, devastated that nation, killed thousands of innocents on both sides, and still has nothing to show for it. The reason we have nothing to show for it is that the insanely primitive, blood thirsty cultures in the middle east have been in prolonged wars of hatred for centuries, and are clearly programmed to kill each other forever.

If one thing isn’t obvious by now to our government, the military companies that make arms, or the talking heads who proclaim advanced knowledge, it should be to the American people: nothing the United States or any other nation can do militarily will stop the conflicts in this area of the world; short of completely destroying the world. The only hope for the peaceful is to convince the powerful that now is the time to back away and stop propping up governments in places where we have no business being in the first place. We no longer have the excuse that we weren’t warned, centuries of defeat have embraced all who have been foolish to make a go at Afghanistan.

But no one mentions how we could have spent our time better. Imagine if you will if our resources had been used instead to give aid to friendly nations who need our help, and are willing to cease fighting to gain aid. A trillion dollars would have bought a lot of happy children in Africa. Americans don’t possess the critical acumen to understand that these cooked up CIA conflicts are unsolvable, and almost entirely irrelevant to our national security. Declare economic war with the governments who harbor terrorists and are hostile to the United States, and protect your borders, but please, don’t get involved as hostile occupiers.

It is time to withdrawal our troops, to close our borders, issue embargoes, return their visiting students and tourists to those countries that harbor hatred for our nation and others based on nationality, ethnicity, race or culture. If our citizens can not travel freely in a place across the world without the constant fear of being killed or kidnapped, if our government cannot achieve any real cessation of war amongst these parties after years of trying, then we must seek an entirely different route to peace. We cannot be the country known primarily for arming hostile nations against each other in an escalation that will surely be the end of our world. Stop speculating what will happen if draft hundreds of thousands, and kill as many more, and join the human race.

You cannot bomb your way into peace.
Richard Campbell

Whenever anti-war folks play the Vietnam card on
situations that have nothing to do with Vietnam, they
automatically loose all credibility. I have yet
to hear about ONE survey were people in Afghanistan
consider Americans invaders. The last survey reported
by the BBC showed only 4% of support amongst the people for the Taliban.

Millard-fillmore, you are absolutely correct. Sadly,
these same anti-war people have short-term memory and
seem to have forgotten that President Obama is doing
EXACTLY what he ran on, the Afghanistan war.
———-
Posted by millard-fillmore:
Why are people who

a. cheered Obama during the debates, when Obama criticized Bush for taking his eye off the ball and moving troops to Iraq from Afghanistan, and

b. nodded their heads when Obama promised pulling out of Iraq and adding forces in Afghanistan

now suddenly talking about Afghanistan being an unjust war?

Why are these people so fickle-minded who can’t make up their minds or analyze situations correctly, and why should we listen to them?

If people are anti-war, why did they vote for Obama in spite of b., and not for Nader or Green Party or other candidates like Ron Paul, who, unlike Obama, were unequivocal about their position and anti-war stance?

Where is the moral compass of these people (Obama voters) and why do they keep shifting goalposts?

Noone seems to recognize that the military has changed considerably since Vietnam. This is not Vietnam, Mr. Ellsberg.

As for the military planning the war, the war was planned with the help of peace organizations as well as the military.

Pacification and conventional war, as practiced in Vietnam, are not the same as the 3-block war style strategy our military has developed, which involves troops using a combination of conflict resolution, civic aid, and combat.

And if we pull out we can’t supply any civic aid, period, as Kucinich recommends, as we won’t be able to protect our AID workers.

Henrietta Holsman-Fore, head of US-AID, several months ago wrote a piece in Parameters, stating that stereotyped visions of the military is now one of the factors most holding back US-AID from doing its work. Wake up to what the military is currently doing, and stop obsessing on Vietnam.

Since noone here, except

The announcement that CIA, now part of DoD, will be operating heavily in Afghanistan/Pakistan is not new. The war was planned and funded by the intelligence committee. Chayes and Shays are just what is left of the first effort. The fact that CIA is being announced is just self fulfilling prophecies from the agency. It is more about funding than the military. The military can’t be funded like NGOs and CIA, so we should see that pick up, which was the goal from the beginning.

As so many have pointed out, this is an unending war. When will we know we have won? or lost? Will we wait until most of our young men and women in the Army, Marines are killed, maimed or psychologically ruined? It is literally like pouring sand down a rathole. there is no end in sight. Afghanistan is a primitive culture with warlords and a crook for a leader. How many millions or trillons of dollars will we waste over there. The 9-11 attack was planned mostly in Germany. Do we go over to Hamburg and start dropping bombs? Obama bin-Laden is rumored to be in Pakistan. If we don’t find him in Afghanistan do we move on to Pakistan and invade it? There is no end to this. I say leave Afganistan, leave Iraq. We have done all the damage to them and us that we can afford or tolerate. If they kill each other, too bad. What is worse, being killed by a countryman or being killed by an American? We are bankrupting our country and ruining our Army. If they are needed for some legitimate purpose, will we have enough able bodied men to meet the challenge? Soldiers going back for the third or fourth round are cannon fodder. They are so worn down and worn out, they are sitting ducks. If they survive, their mental health isin jeopardy. What will we gain? I am in my 70’s and aside from WW2, we have not fought a just or needed war. We have jumped in when we are not wanted or needed and created generations of people who despise us. And I don’t blame them! Bring our boys home.

Don’t understand. Why WBUR/OnPoint is blocking postings that are critical of Israel.

Constantly getting 500 Error for certain postings

Maybe they don’t like belly dancing.

All the wars since at least WW2 have NOT been self defense, these have all been aggressions. The U.S. has killed millions of innocent people in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. Those people never attacked the U.S. So why did we kill them? And why do we kill, throughout Afghanistan today and onwards, into Pakistan? Did those people attack America? I strongly disapprove of the entire US military. For shame. They are not defending us. And they know it.

Why do we allow the militarists to define their business as “honorable” when we can so easily disprove and destroy their myth? Stand tall, and explain that all their killing is dishonorable and a disservice to America.
Todd Boyle USN 1970-72 member of VFP chapter 92

This show and some in the past have left a sour taste in my mouth. Active in Afghan politics for long and now an American citizen, I think that some of your guests are really creating some straw men to push for a pull out or abandonement of a sort. Thank you, Tom, for correcting the excess by allowing dissenting views from listeners, like Michael’s from the military, to offer another perspective.

Worst to me is the analogy to Vietnam or the Soviets. How could anyone in their right mind compare support for an Islamic government with support for a bold, openly atheistic government? Americans and Karzai government go out of their way–in my view too far– to be considerate of Islamic traditions. They go too far in naively avoiding death penalty and even releasing Taliban commanders while the Soviet era meant immediate execution, sometimes, within government offices as soon as you voiced a complaint.

Understandably, the entire nation turned anti-Soviet in a matter of months. But the majority of Afghans, especcially political figures and the media, have still not called for a withdrawal of the NATO forces. They talk about support for Taliban. That support is generated by two things: fear and money. You support them, the government MAY arrest you. You support the government, they will behead you publicly even if you are not 15 yet.

The aveage American now finally knows what a waste the whole Iraq war was, though they, and our Congress refused to listen to massive evidence that it would be a disaster to go into that country. Imagine if we had spent a trillion dollars rescuing poor people in Africa, or Haiti? Afghanistan is poor and its people need help, we all agree, but rather than taking a military approach why doesn’t the West get smart for once and go to select towns and cities, rebuild the infrastructure, and make people happy because their standard of living is significantly better. The United States can’t afford to go into another country in that region militarily, andarming sides in that region is inviting disaster. I agree with the other observer. Let us really declare a war if we have reason, otherwise get all our troops out of there.

I suggest that people view the recent “Bill Moyers Journal” episode that features the author Rory Stewart. The man has served in Afghanistan for many years. the interview is fascinating. He makes a compelling argument about what should be considered and/or done in Afghanistan. I hope that President Obama will give this person’s opinion due consideration.

Not for a moment should we ever consider forgetting the September 11 attacks. That being said, is there any sense in bombing, shooting etc. people that had nothing to do with that awful day. I don’t know what the solution for Afghanistan is, but this can’t be it.

Should have left this in the other message. Frank Rich’s recent column in the New York Times titled “Obama at the Precipice” is such a well considered evaluation of the situation in Afghanistan.

It amazes me that we can even consider nation building in Afghanistan when there is so much need for scarce resources here at home. It is truly screwed up that we allow the government to confiscate our wealth to blow on these ludicrous schemes.

We need to return to the foreign policy of the founders. We should have peace and free trade with all nations – entangling alliances and interventions with none.

The problem in Afghanistan and Pakistan ( they are linked) is that the purpose, cause and endgame were not discussed back in 2001. Just eject the Taliban.
Now in 2009 at least McChyrstal as come up with comprehensive overview, which is being stretched to have links by some with Al Qaeda’s international goals and that is a stretch.
The cause of both Al Qaeda and the Taliban is fundamentally religious or jihad ( defence of the faith) and both have extremist interpretations of the Qu’ran.
However,it is true to say the Taliban will return to Afghanistan if Americas new strategy is just to fight Al Qaeda.
If America and ISAF forces stay it must be on the basis:-
1) Of a combined and agreed military strategy of those forces, and objectives.
2) A clear plan for civil re-construction and equally the resources and who is in Charge. The UN or a special sub committee of the UN, US and other nations providing ISAF forces.
3) That means training local police (at the tribal level and a national supervisory force ala FBI say.
4) Putting in place a legal structure under sharia law, after first coming up with a consistent code, and penalties and appointing local Tribal level judges and a national court, a sort of state and federal structure similar to US, since it allows local ethnic variations but is less like to be totally corrupted.
5) Someone has to decide whether all that is doable, becuase if not it is time to get out; if it is perceived as doable then it can be followed with Education, infrastructure and Agricultural (away from poppy crops) construction projects. The key here would be employing as many afghans as possible and minimal outsiders ( technicians/ specialists only) ) so that money gets into the economy and again be at the tribal level initially. Easier to contol the corruption and misuse of funds.
The military role is security to allow the above to happen. So McChyrstal is partly right, but I see a need for some strong undercover( i.e special forces) counter terrorism activity over the next 12 months ( follow them back where they go for the winter) and during the winter a really strong push in developing the counter insurgency including “plan do act” to be fully operational by Spring next on the above 1-5 when the higher troop numbers provide the security along with more trained police and Afghan army to allow the counter insurgency to work along with economic development.
It is not McChrystals job to develop the civilian plan, only the security to allow it to take place.
Regards,
Hodgson.