Trump Is Wrong - Hundreds Of NATO Troops Died Supporting The U.S.

From Axios.com  

Will The Taliban Take Over Afghanistan? Yes & That's OK!

Most U.S. troops are out of Afghanistan now, and very soon, all of them will be gone. As U.S. troops leave, the Taliban is taking over large areas of the country -- and it's very likely they will soon be in control of the whole country. This is not unexpected.

But it's being used by some to criticize the withdrawal of U.S. troops. But it shouldn't be. The U.S. (and some of its allies) have been in Afghanistan for about 20 years. It is the longest war the United States has engaged in. And for at least the last decade, it has been obvious that the situation would not get any better. There was no way the U.S. could "win".

The situation is much like the one the U.S. found itself in during the Vietnam War. We were trying to mandate a government in both Vietnam and Afghanistan through the use of our troops -- and it didn't work. We have the best military in the world, but we were asking them to accomplish an impossible task -- sustaining a (corrupt) government we had imposed on them.

Frankly, I think large numbers of Afghan citizens see that government as an extension of the United States intervention. And they won't care when it falls. Many also regard the Taliban fighters as heroes who resisted the foreign invader and finally drove them out.

That's not what Americans want to think, but it's not our country. As with any country, it is up to the citizens of Afghanistan to determine their own government (and the people that will control that government). 

Are the Taliban repressive and dictatorial? Yes. Will their government be a good one. No. It wasn't before, and it's not likely to be any better now. But that's for the citizens of Afghanistan to decide. When enough of them decide they no longer want to be ruled by the Taliban, then they will kick them out of power. It could be month or many years, but it will happen -- but it will happen only when the Afghan citizens decide it is time.

Boris Yeltsin once said that a person can build a throne out of bayonets, but they can't sit on it for very long. That applies to Afghanistan, just like it does to every country. 

The United States needs to stop trying to impose governmental change on other countries through the use of military force. It doesn't work, and we should stop trying to do it. Sadly though, we have a lot of stupid and hard-headed politicians. It would not surprise me to see them try it again -- and fail again.

Huge Public Support For Afghanistan Troop Withdrawal

 

The chart above reflects the result of the CBS News / YouGov Poll -- done between April 21st and 24th of a national sample of 2,527 adults, with a 2.3 point margin of error.

President Biden To Withdraw Troops From Afghanistan

 

There is one thing that must be said about President Biden -- he's not afraid to take bold action!. He demonstrated that with his COVID aid package, with his all-out vaccination program, and again with his $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan. Now he has announced that he is withdrawing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by September.

Since his intentions were known, many in the media and in Congress have come out opposes the withdrawal. They are wrong -- the president is right! I support President Biden's decision to withdraw the troops. Here is why:

We should never have been conducting war in that country for nearly the last 20 years. President Bush started the war to get Osama bin-Laden. Afghanistan had offered to turn bin-Laden over to the International Court, but that wasn't good enough for Bush.

After it proved difficult to find bin-Laden, Bush changed the purpose of the war. It was then an effort to establish a western-style democracy in Afghanistan. That was ridiculous! You can't impose a democracy on another country at the point of a gun. The people of a country get the government they want. If they do not want a western-style democracy, or are not ready for it, it will fail.

President Obama completed Bush's original plan by sending Seal Team 6 to get bin-Laden in Pakistan, resulting in his death. Sadly though, Obama then continued the war -- supposedly to protect the fragile and corrupt democracy in Afghanistan and "fight terrorism".

The truth is that since the death of bin-Laden, nothing has really been accomplished in Afghanistan. The Taliban still exists and the war continues at a low level. But there is no assurance of any kind that things there will get better if we stay another year, or five years, or twenty years. The war has gone on longer than any war the U.S. has ever engaged in, and there is absolutely no prospect of "winning" it (whatever that means).

Opponents say if we leave the Taliban will take over again. I think that will probably happen. But it is not our task to impose a government on another nation. The people of Afghanistan must decide that for themselves. If they don't want the Taliban, or tire of them in the future, they will kick them out of power -- and they'll do it without anyone's help!

As Boris Yeltsin once said -- You can build a throne out of bayonets, but you can't sit on it for long. We must allow the Afghans to determine their own future -- and they can't do that until we are gone. 

President Biden is doing the right thing!

Russian And U.S. Troops Are Fighting Each Other In Syria

(This image of Russian "mercenaries" is by Vasily Maximov / APF / Getty images.)

Things are starting to get very scary in Syria. The American public, thanks to lies from the Trump administration, is under the impression that Russia and the United States are operating together to fight ISIS in Syria. The truth is very different. Russia is there to help the Assad government stay in power, and the U.S. is there to aid the Kurds and Syrians fighting against Assad.

Russia has what it calls "mercenaries" fighting on the ground in Syria. But make no mistake. That designation is just to give Russia some "plausible deniability". Those are Russian soldiers operating under orders from the Russian government (Putin). And they are fighting U.S. troops stationed in Syria.

Last week, Syrian government troops and Russian "mercenaries" attacked a base in Deer Ezzor -- a base where the Russians knew U.S. (and Kurdish) troops were stationed. The attack was beaten back by American air power, and those mercenaries suffered heavy casualties (which were flown by Russian Air Force to military hospitals in Moscow and St. Petersburg).

Make no mistake -- Russia and the United States are now in a shooting war. So far, this is confined to a small part of Syria. Will it remain that way, or does this portend a wider war between the two countries?

Neither the U.S. nor Russia has a legitimate reason to have troops in Syria. That's a conflict that must be settled by the Syrians. Once both sent troops to Syria, it was inevitable that they would sooner or later be fighting each other. Now, it is happening.

Do Putin and Trump have enough sense to step back and stop this? I doubt it. Both are narcissists who can't admit any wrongdoing or mistakes -- and both would like to impose their will on the Middle East through military power. There is a very good chance that this situation gets worse instead of better.

Soldiers Oppose A Military Re-Engagement In Iraq

A couple of days ago, I wrote about a survey by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal. That survey showed that, if necessary, about 45% of the American public said they would support sending ground troops to fight ISIS if our military leaders said it was necessary -- and a whopping 72% thought a substantial number of combat ground troops would eventually be sent back to Iraq.

But our own soldiers are not as amenable to the idea of sending troops back into Iraq as the general public seems to be. The chart above was made from information contained in a survey done by Military Times magazine. They surveyed 2,200 active-duty troops in a reader survey during August. That survey showed that over 70% of the soldiers opposed sending ground combat troops back into Iraq, while less than 30% supported it. These are the guys who would be doing the fighting, and they think it would be a mistake.

I agree with them. The conflict in that area is a religious civil war, and it must be settled by those who live in that region. The United States cannot settle this conflict for the Iraqis and Syrians, and cannot win militarily. All our involvement will do is to get U.S. soldiers killed, and create more enemies through the killing of more innocent civilians. We need to stop this insanity now.

The survey also asked the soldiers if the war in Iraq had been a success. When they asked that in previous years, a majority of the soldiers said yes -- but that is no longer true. Now about 59.6% of our active-duty soldiers say it was not. The truth about what we failed to accomplish in Iraq is now becoming very apparent to them.

Canada Comes To Its Senses - The U.S. Doesn't

(This image of Canadian troops returning is from the website of the BBC.)

The Afghan occupation is now in its 13th year, and while the United States government seems to want to continue it indefinitely, other countries don't. This week the Canadian government followed the lead of some other nations and withdrew the last of their troops from Afghanistan.

The first Canadian troops went to Afghanistan in December of 2001 -- a special forces unit called Joint Task Force 2. In the years that followed, thousands of Canadian troops served in that country. And 158 Canadian soldiers were killed -- the first four killed by a bomb dropped from an American plane.

The Canadian flag was lowered for the last time on March 12th, and the last 84 soldiers were sent to Cyprus for a few days of rest and recreation. They arrived in Canada on March 18th (see picture above) and were met in Ottawa by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Harper told them, "Welcome home and job well done".

Of course, the job wasn't "done". But after more than a decade of killing and being killed, the Canadians were smart enough to realize that -- and they realized that the United States has no intention of leaving any time soon. So they declared victory and brought their troops home.

That is what the United States should also do. If more than 12 years of war couldn't accomplish their goal (whatever that is), more years of occupation and killing are not going to get anything more done. I think the politicians probably know that, but none of them have the political courage to withdraw all of the troops. They are all afraid of being labeled as being weak on defense (even though that occupation has nothing to do with the defense of this country).

Canada has come to its senses. Now it's time for the United States to do the same. Political cowardice is a poor excuse for costing more American (and Afghan) lives.

France Will Withdraw From Afghanistan

It didn't take New French president Hollande long to change some important French policies. On the night of his election, he made sure that everyone knew that France would no longer go along with Germany in enforcing the failed economic policy of "austerity". Now only a week later, he has changed another French policy -- this time regarding Afghanistan.

The French president has just informed President Obama that France will withdraw all of its troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year. His predecessor, Sarkozy, had promised to keep the French troops in Afghanistan until the end of 2014 (when Obama says American troops will be withdrawn).

France is not as heavily invested in the occupation of Afghanistan as the United States is. They only have about 3,300 troops in that country. But the French withdrawal is significant nonetheless. The U.S. will have to take over the duties currently being performed by the French, and with another ally gone, it will make it more politically difficult for the United States to stay in Afghanistan for another two years (especially since a majority of Americans are now opposed to the war and want a sooner withdrawal).

U.S. sources are saying that the French president was just referring to combat troops, and might leave some "trainers" in the country. I'm not so sure he would do that -- or even could if he wanted to. In his campaign for the presidency, Hollande promised the French people to withdraw all of the troops.  Hollande told the president that France would "continue to support Afghanistan in a different way".

France is doing the right thing. Nothing more can be accomplished by the continued occupation of Afghanistan. It is time for the American government to realize that and end the whole mess by bringing ALL troops back home.

The Occupation Of Haiti

It's been a while since most people thought of Haiti in this country, but they are still trying to recover from the disaster of a few years ago -- and they are still occupied by troops from other countries. Why are those troops still there? When will they leave? Surely the need for them has long since passed.

Uruguayan writer and historian Eduardo Galeano recently gave a speech to a forum held in Montevideo about Haiti, and I really like what he had to say. Here is part of that speech:

Look it up in any encyclopedia. Ask which was the first free county in America. You will always get the same answer: the United States. But the United States declared its independence while it was a nation with 650,000 slaves, who continued being slaves for a century, and in its first constitution established that a black was the equivalent of three fifths of a person.


And if you ask any encyclopedia what was the first country to abolish slavery you will always get the same answer: England. But the first country to abolish slavery was not England but Haiti, which is still atoning for the sin of its dignity.


The black slaves of Haiti had defeated the glorious army of Napoleon Bonaparte and Europe never forgave them for this humiliation. For a century and a half, Haiti paid France an enormous compensation for being guilty of its own freedom, but even that was not enough. That black insolence is still offensive to the white masters of the world.

Currently the armies of several countries, including my own, still occupy Haiti. How is this military invasion justified? By claiming that Haiti puts international security at risk.

Nothing new.


Throughout the 19th century, the example of Haiti constituted a threat to the security of countries that still practiced slavery. Thomas Jefferson had already said it: the plague of rebellion came from Haiti. In South Carolina, for example, the law permitted the jailing of any black sailor while his ship was in port because of the risk that he might spread the anti-slave pestilence. And in Brazil, that pestilence was known as Haitianism.


In the 20th century, Haiti was invaded by the marines because it was an unsafe country for its foreign creditors. The invaders proceeded to take charge of customs and handed the National Bank over to City Bank of New York. And once there, they stayed for 19 years.


How long will foreign soldiers stay in Haiti? They arrived to stabilize and to help, but they have been there for seven years, unhelpful and destabilizing this country that does not want them.


The military occupation of Haiti is costing the United Nations more than 800 million dollars a year.


If the United Nations were to spend those funds on technical cooperation and social solidarity, Haiti would receive a strong boost for developing its creative energy. And it could thus save itself from its armed saviors, who have a certain tendency to rape, to kill and to spread fatal diseases.


Haiti does not need anyone to come and multiply its calamities. Nor does it need anyone’s charity. As an old African proverb says so well, the hand that gives is always above the hand that receives.


But Haiti does need solidarity, doctors, schools, hospitals and genuine collaboration to make possible the rebirth of its food sovereignty, destroyed by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other philanthropic societies.


For us Latin Americans, that solidarity is a debt of gratitude: it will be the best way to say thank you to this small great nation that in 1804, with its contagious example, opened the doors of liberty to us.

Bush/al-Maliki Agree To Long-Term Stay Of Troops

We've known for quite a while that Bush had no intention of removing our troops from Iraq before the end of his term. Now he is trying to force that same decision on the next president.

Yesterday, Bush and the Iraqi leader al-Maliki signed an agreement that would leave a substantial amount of U.S. troops in Iraq for many years. The Iraqi leader said at least 50,000 troops would be left in the country to protect his government and the constitution that created it, even after the fighting has subdued (if it ever does).

Both men know that the puppet government that Bush has installed in Iraq would not last a week after all the U.S. troops have been withdrawn. While both the Shiites and the Sunnis disagree on the government they want in Iraq, both sides would like to see the current puppet government gone. That may be the only thing they agree on.

But political reality has never been Bush's strong-suit. He is determined to force this government on the Iraqi citizens no matter how long he has to let American troops die there. It has nothing to do with Iraqi self-determination -- it's all about Bush's pride and his unwillingness to admit he made a mistake.

However, even a C-student like Bush can see that it's very likely that the next president is probably going to be a Democrat. I think that's a major reason he signed this new agreement. It is an attempt to force the new president to leave troops in Iraq and protect his puppet government.

It might even work with Clinton and Obama. Both have said they would leave some troops there. But if the new president is Richardson, Edwards, Kucinich or Dodd, then this new agreement was an exercise in futility. All four of them have pledged to remove ALL U.S. troops from Iraq.

I think Bush has forgotten the root cause of the 9/11 attacks (if he ever understood it at all). The terrorists have been quite frank in telling us that they attacked America because American troops are stationed in Saudi Arabia and other places in the Arabic world. Leaving troops in Iraq will not solve this problem -- it will only exacerbate the problem, and set us up for more attacks in the future.

This ridiculous new agreement makes it even more important that either Richardson, Edwards, Kucinich or Dodd be elected in 2008. They are the only candidates that really understand the situation in that part of the world.

Richardson Says Bring Troops Home This Year

While many Democrats in Washington are playing games with Bush over what he'll veto and what he won't, there are a few Democrats calling for an end to the games and an end to the war - now. Bill Richardson is one of those Democrats.

Richardson reminds us why he would make an excellent president as he calls for an end to the Iraqi war THIS YEAR - not some time in the future when timetables or benchmarks may or may not have been met.

Yesterday, Richardson sent the following letter to his supporters explaining his stand on the war. Here is what he had to say:

Dear jobsanger,

Congress has the power to end this war. They authorized the invasion of Iraq under the War Powers Act and they can now de-authorize it and bring the troops home.

De-authorization can't be vetoed. The President won't listen to the American people, and he won't listen to Congress -- together we can show him that being stubborn isn't a foreign policy.

For several months, I have been calling for de-authorizing this war and leaving no residual troops because I believe that this is is the best approach to ending the violence.

But many Americans don't even know that de-authorization is an option. They know the proposals coming out of Washington don't go far enough, but they don't know a better way forward.

That's where you come in. I need your help to send the message to Congress that they need to execute their authority to end this war immediately. It is increasingly obvious to me that only an overwhelming public outcry will force our leaders to act. So let's create that outcry.

Our presence in Iraq worsens the violence and enables our enemies to portray us as imperialist occupiers. If we announce that we are getting out completely, we undercut this propaganda. We need to get all our troops out of the crossfire of this civil war.

Anything less than immediate de-authorization and the withdrawal of all American troops is not a real plan to end this war. We can't leave behind airbases. We can't leave behind embedded troops to train the Iraqi army. We can't leave behind any residual force whatsoever in a country where American troops aren't wanted and have targets on their backs.

I know this region well and understand how people there see the world. I served as Ambassador to the UN, President Clinton's Special Envoy, and as Secretary of Energy. I have been there. I even met with Saddam Hussein and secured the release of hostages. Diplomacy can work in this region -- I've done it before -- there is no military solution in Iraq.

Last Thursday, Senators Clinton and Byrd introduced a proposal to de-authorize the war. I'm pleased to have their support, but I encourage them to go further.

We must de-authorize the war and set a timetable to get our troops out by the end of this year.

Sincerely,
Bill Richardson

Clinton and Obama Still Don't Get It

It looks like Hilary Clinton still wants to sit on the fence when it comes to withdrawing our troops from Iraq. A lot of progressives want her to admit she made a mistake by voting for the Iraq war. I personally don't care about that. A lot of Democrats at the time were either duped by Bush's lies, or were too gutless to stand up against a stupid and unneccessary war.

But that is all water under the bridge now. What bothers me about Clinton are her current views on Iraq. She still doesn't seem to know which side of the fence she wants to be on.

On one hand, she says we need to withdraw our troops from Iraq. Then she turns around and says she would leave some U.S. troops in Iraq PAST the year 2009. She doesn't seem to understand that taking the middle road on this war will not get votes from both sides - it will lose votes from both sides.

Pulling most troops out and then leaving a smaller force still in Iraq is a sure prescription for disaster. We are barely holding our own with the number of troops that are there now. A smaller force would not even be able to defend itself, let alone fight terrorists as she is suggesting.

There are only two options that have any kind of political viability - send more troops or pull them all out. Her plan smacks of Bushism - that is, trying to do too big a job with too few troops.

Sadly, the other Democratic frontrunner, Barack Obama, agrees with Clinton. He has also come up with a plan to withdraw most troops, but leave a small force there. These two just don't get it. This is not the time to continue Bush's failed policies in Iraq.

Fortunately, there are a couple of candidates who do understand the situation, and are not afraid to say we should get out of Iraq and not prolong the disaster. They are Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich. I am on the Richardson bandwagon, but I must give Kucinich his due - he was one of the few who opposed the war from the very beginning.

If you are an anti-war Democrat, perhaps it is time to give up on Clinton and Obama and find a candidate who agrees with you.