MEDIA REPORT: DEBATE RAGES OVER OBAMA AFGHANISTAN PLAN(S)

By Bob Hanafin

This is a article was also posted on my blogs at Progress Ohio and Veterans Today. The intent of the article is to highlight the fact that QUESTIONS remain [within the anti-Iraqnam War movement itself] regarding not only HOW Senator Barack Obama plans getting us OUT OF IRAQ, but also HOW does Obama plan on escalating the Afghanistan War. Politely put, how does Obama plan on doing Afghanistan II over again, since our government did not obviously get it right the first time around.

To those who feel Senator Obama is being picked on with little to no attention paid to Senator McCain or the other two Independent candidates for President. It is because despite all the diverse views and opinions on reacton to what Senator Obama intends to do - NO ONE INTERVIEWED FOR THIS ARTICLE INTENDS VOTING FOR JOHN MCCAIN, and few expressed support for an Independent Candidate. I will report on what everyone contacted or documented had to say even those who support whatever Senator Obama intends to do.

Independent Voters SPLIT, UPSET and DEBATE Senator Obama’s Afghanistan buildup plans
There has been a growing debate over Senator Obama's Afghanistan plans since returning from his trip to the region. Debate rages within what could be considered the swing vote community. The conflict, similar to confusion over the direct relationship between THE ECONOMY, and how do WE THE PEOPLE continue PAYING for both Iraq and Afghanistan, tends to be over how VOTERS view, and are seriously committed to burden sharing in, the War on Terror. Even THE DRAFT is being bounced around even if it is a taboo issue for all Presidential candiates.

The intent of this post is to raise the hard questions for the Obama campaign, that the media IS NOT going to raise. This may have to be in two parts given the feedback I received to what the official position of a few anti-Iraqnam War groups were. Bobby Hanafin The Mustang Major

There are several editorial cartoons running that reflect concerns over QUESTIONS of how the Presidential candidates refine their positions to fit whatever appears to be the polling data or mood of the country instead of sticking with a position or taking a stand they believe is the righteous course of action FOR AMERICA.

These questions revolve around how and when troops will be sent from Iraq to Afghanistan. Will they return to the U.S. first for much needed rest, recuperation, reequipment, and ensured readiness condition or will they be directly sent from Iraq to Afghanistan?

In all fairness to Senator Obama, because our military family would prefer to support him for our next Commander-In-Chief, here is a link to his official campaign site Foreign Policy Statement(s).

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

We also note a Fight the Smears link on the Obama campaign site, and let us (Independent/Swing Voters) ensure you these QUESTIONS are not smears. We do not question Senator Obama’s intentions regarding Afghanistan only how he is going to ACCOMPISH THE MISSION? These questions ARE NOT intended to smear Senator Obama. That is not the point.

He is going to get enough of that from the McCain campaign, and no one interviewed intends to vote for John McCain PERIOD!

      Regardless, Senator Obama’s Foreign Policy Plan(s) lack clarity about how to reasonably make it happen (subdue Afghanistan) without the Draft or without continuing to as Senator Obama said, "burden...our troops and military families."

      On one hand he rightly stresses the burdens on our troops and military families, the downside of Iraq, clearly explains a reasonable and realistic phasing out of our troops from Iraq, but leaves a vague number of troops behind to protect our interests in Iraq that was not clarified until recently (50,000, and I assume that is subject to change based on public response to such a large number).

POINT: Nothing was/is mentioned on his campaign website or TV ads about leaving 50,000 troops behind in Iraq (Scratching Head).

      As of this writing, the latest reported by the media is that the situation on the ground after Senator Obama is elected will determine how many troops would remain in Iraq or go to Afghanistan. I'm still not clear on what the official position of Senator Obama is.

[It is not that threat that is questionable  but how to deal with it without undue additional burdens on our volunteer military families and troops. It is they who need the nation's support in blood, sweat, and tears of the entire American people to prosecute any international War on Terror regardless if voters believe there is a International War or not. It is not the threat or righteousness of having our troops in Afghanistan that is questionable, but HOW to achieve this and continue to tell American's to go on with life as usual, fighting and dying in THE WAR is somebody else's problem? Deploying troops to Afghanistan appears to vaguely mean immediately and how can one have a safe and secure phase out from Iraq and simultaneously deploy combat troops to Afghanistan? Senator Obama needs to make it clear that how our troops would be safely and securely phased into Afghanistan and not interfere with any phase out from Iraq. More so, are the troops being deployed to Afghanistan fresh, rested, and troops of the highest readiness level or are they to be exhausted, undermanned units sent from the Iraq frying pan into the Afghanistan fire].

The ONLY reasonable and realistic way to achieve both a safe and secure phase out of Iraq and phase in of Afghanistan is expect and demand full United States national commitment up to and including THE DRAFT. Anything short of that is either not worth fighting for OR a band aid.

FROM THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN’S FOREIGN POLICY STATEMENT

In his own words, Senator Obama appears to understand the:

Strains on the Military - "More than 1.75 million servicemen and women have served in Iraq or Afghanistan; more than 620,000 troops have completed multiple deployments. Military members have endured multiple deployments taxing both them and their families. [So the answer is asking them (us) to endure even more multiple deployments to Afghanistan. The War on Terror needs to be an all out American effort NOT the few precious American Patriots who volunteer to shoulder the burden] Additionally, military equipment is wearing out at nine times the normal rate after years of constant use in Iraq’s harsh environment. [Is the Afghanistan environment any less harsh than Iraq? We do not think so]. As Army Chief of Staff General George Casey said in March, “Today’s Army is out of balance. The current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies.” [Sound like we need Selective Service now more than ever!]

Resurgent Al Qaeda in Afghanistan: The decision to invade Iraq diverted resources from the war in Afghanistan, making it harder for us to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden and others involved in the 9/11 attacks. Nearly seven years later, [One more time, nearly seven years later, we’re going to now get it right by placing more strain on our ground forces. Use the Navy and Air Force as ground troops in Afghanistan and then the plan may not need THE DRAFT] the Taliban has reemerged in southern Afghanistan while Al Qaeda has used the space provided by the Iraq war to regroup, train and plan for another attack on the United States. [I’m sorry folks but this sounds exactly like the same FEAR mongering that the Bush administration has fed WE THE PEOPLE for over seven years and counting. Major Hanafin]

2007 was the most violent year in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001. The scale of our deployments in Iraq continues to set back our ability to finish the fight in Afghanistan, producing unacceptable strategic risks.

THE QUESTION REMAINS: Is the "FEAR factor" of a War on Terror on the scale of a National Emergency requiring full and unequivocal burden sharing by the entire American people. If not, Obama needs to say so. If so, he needs to define EXACTLY what is expected of the American people to win or at least contain the threat posed by the War on Terror? Major Hanafin]

According to the Obama campaign - A New Strategy Needed: The Iraq war has lasted longer than World War I, World War II, and the Civil War. [Afghanistan has lasted LONGER!] More than 4,000 Americans have died. More than 60,000 have been injured and wounded. The United States may spend $2.7 trillion on this war and its aftermath, yet we are less safe around the globe and more divided at home. With determined ingenuity and at great personal cost, American troops have found the right tactics to contain the violence in Iraq, but we still have the wrong strategy to press Iraqis to take responsibility at home, and restore America’s security and standing in the world.

SPECIAL NOTE: It is not Senator Obama’s intention or really foreign policy that is questionable, it is being unclear about how he realistically, reasonably, morally, and ethically visions carrying it out??? Major Hanafin

What has the media had to say?

Antiwar activists split over Obama's Afghan buildup plans

      According to David Lightman of McClatchy Newspapers, Barack Obama's plan to build up U.S. forces in Afghanistan while keeping perhaps 50,000 troops in Iraq has triggered a deep rift among antiwar activists, a reminder of the difficult tasking facing the presumptive Democratic nominee as he tries to broaden his appeal.

[Note: As usual the media has it wrong; the rift is not only between anti-Iraqnam War activists but between potential Independent and other Swing Voters that any Presidential candidate needs to WIN in November. By definition and fact, anyone who questions the Iraq War may be included in the description of what an anti-Iraqnam war activist is. The very act of going to the voting booth in November is an activist act either for or against a WAR that does not have the full, unequivocal commitment of the American people. Major Hanafin]

      Senator Obama wrapped up three days of tours and talks in the war-ravaged nations.

      The Senator did stress in a news conference that the "situation in Afghanistan is perilous and urgent" and that "we should not wait any longer" to provide additional troops.

[Words that could come back to haunt him unless he demands the nation make a full commitment to the War on Terror including Selective Service – THE DRAFT].

      In Iraq, he won a tacit Iraqi endorsement of a plan to withdraw U.S. combat troops in 2010, but he also said that he backs leaving a residual force in Iraq to help train military personnel, provide security for U.S. interests and thwart terrorist threats. The residual force might total up to 50,000 troops, his campaign advisers have told reporters.

It is only FAIR to note that 50,000 is a number quoted by the media that supposedly got that figure from Obama advisers. I believe Senator Obama has recently come out with statements that leave the residual force dependent upon the situation on the group post-November 2008. Regardless, that high number of troops combined with “we should not wait any longer” to deploy troops to Afghanistan and start over again, IS NOT going to go unquestioned by Independents and Swing Voters].

      On a more positive note, Moveon.org had this to say. "So far the trip has been out of the park. It's an enormous moment," declared Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org, which supports Obama. He hedged about Obama's troop commitments, however: He said he wasn't fully aware of Obama's call for a residual force in Iraq and was trying to get a sense from MoveOn members on their views about Afghanistan.

[SPECIAL NOTE: Moveon.org is a Democrat Party front organization NOT, and NEVER has been, part of the anti-war activist movement. The organization True Majority is closer to being an anti-war group than Moveon.org and members of True Majority also do not walk in lock step to a concensus on Afghanistan or Iraqnam. The ultimate goal of Moveon.org is to win political elections; they are a Political Action Committee – a PAC. They have no legislative agenda or goal of ending the Iraq War unless there's a political reason to do so, especially if Moveon proposes sending troops to Afghanistan from Iraq. That’s about as pro-war as one can get without endorsing John McCain. Major Hanafin’s comment]

       Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of NETWORK, the national Catholic social justice lobbying group, was less enthusiastic. It was a significant step forward," she said, "but it was only a step."

Others were simply annoyed.

Note: I am later going to post responses and comments to this article other than mine to SHOW that others (the real anti-Iraqnam War movement) are not just simply annoyed but PISSED as our military family. Major Hanafin].

      Barbra Bearden, spokeswoman for Peace Action, called Obama's comments about Afghanistan "a bit disheartening." [Now we are almost getting closer to an anti-war group. Not anti-Iraqnam War group but anti-war group, there’s differences. Not everyone in the anti-Iraqnam War movement are anti-WAR per se, just this one. Maj. Hanafin].

      Ian Thompson, lead organizer in Los Angeles for Act Now to Stop War & End Racism, "an antiwar group," found Obama's Afghanistan position similar to that of President Bush and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain. "What this shows is that Barack Obama does not really represent any policy shift," Thompson said.

[Note: Ok, now I get it. This is the first time that the reporter has identified “an anti-war group,” thus all organizations previously mentioned are political action committees or groups. Maj. Hanafin].

      The trip's chief political goal has been to bolster Obama's stature among voters. The 46-year-old first-term U.S. senator is running against an opponent with a lengthy national security resume, and a Pew Research Center poll taken June 18-29 found 55 percent of voters thought McCain could better defend the U.S. against terrorism, while only 31 percent preferred Obama. And they thought, by a 47 to 41 percent margin, that McCain could make better judgments about Iraq.

"But we have to wait and see; we don't know the public reaction yet."

[Word to the WISE: If the true majority see but a slight  difference in how Senator McCain or Senator Obama plans on handling "their" War on Terror, I predict that most swing voters would vote for McCain, because he will be viewed as the better Commander-In-Chief if we had to maintain a sustaining force of 50,000 in Iraq plus deploy Lord only knows how many to Afghanistanam. We have been tip toeing through the Afghanistan/Pakistan region since we invaded Iraq, and now all of a sudden Afghanistan is the key to ending the Iraq War. Show of hands – how many of you swing voters were born yesterday? Major Hanafin]

      After Obama met Monday with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said that while Iraq did not endorse a date certain for withdrawal, he hoped it could occur sometime in 2010. His visit "appears to have given the Iraqis the courage to express some of what they're thinking, without fear of the Bush administration reprisals," said Campbell of NETWORK.

[Campbell evidently underestimates G.W. Bush who has how many months left to hand the Iraqi government reprisals? Major Hanafin]

But Obama's views troubled many peace activists. [Amen to that!]

      Bearden of Peace Action said that "we've seen the results of these military actions. We create a power vacuum and try to create a government. We did that in Iraq, and now we're talking about using the same failed strategy again in Afghanistan."

Note: That’s ABOUT IT FOLKS – THAT IS WHY MOST INDEPENDENTS AND SWING VOTERS WILL EITHER VOTE FOR RON PAUL OR RALPH NADER. I believe that Senator McCain has the most to gain from such a swing vote even by losing votes to Republican-Libertarian Ron Paul. Major Hanafin

      Judith LeBlanc, organizing coordinator for United for Peace & Justice, said that "dealing with the threat of terrorism cannot be done on a military basis." She and other activists wanted to hear more from Obama about a strategy for dealing with terrorism around the globe, including more use of diplomacy and economic aid.
[Note: The Catch-22 for Senator Obama is that he cannot do the above without losing support of the Israeli Lobby in Washington, DC.]

SPECIAL NOTE TO MCCAIN SUPPORTERS: The activists agreed on this much: They're not going to vote for McCain.

      However, just raising the QUESTIONS of who they would vote for or would they stay home Election Day hurts Obama more than it does John McCain. Every swing voter that may have voted for Obama will be A VOTE FOR MCCAIN or the two Independent Candidates runing by proxy. Major Hanafin.

      But whether Obama generated new enthusiasm, let alone attracted fence-sitting independent voters [that’s our military family] as McCain continued to blast him as naive, remains an open question.

NOW FOR SOME PUBLIC REACTION – I MENTIONED EARLIER

If the Iraqis and McCain buy Obama's Plan, it must be GOOD
Heck, even the Iraqis say so.
Not only that, but McCain has signed on to Obama's plan for Afghanistan.

Obama's Plan for Afghanistan is the right one.
We must ALL admit that Obama's plan is the right one concerning Iraq and Afghanistan. Heck, even the Iraqis say so.

IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN WHO CARES - BOTH COST TOO MUCH!
Barack Obama, quite rightly, has pointed out that the $10 billion per month being spent on the Iraq War - - probably an understatement by a large margin - - could instead be used to address the economic problems so hugely exacerbated by the war. No "residal" force should be kept in a country against the clearly expressed wishes of the great majority of the population, and the government, of that country.

[Note: Veterans associated with the Labor Movement (AFL-CIO) are running TV ads on behalf of Obama that are hinged on the overwhelming wasted costs each month. To support a policy of spending the billions in Afghanistan and Iraq takes the bite out of that TV ad. Does it really matter where the billions are wasted – Iraq or Afghanistan or both? Major Hanafin]

 If Mr. Obama plays his cards right, he will eliminate the word "win" from any discussion that also contains the word "Afghanistan". [British for you Rebels out there] Alexander couldn't do it, the Victorians couldn't do it, and the Soviets couldn't do it. There is nothing exceptional in Americans that will enable them to set any new precedents. (That should be obvious to all by now.)
I have to agree. To now refocus on Afghanistan in the 11th hour will only result in a worse quagmire than Iraq was and remains despite temporary advances in SURGES. Major Hanafin

The best they can hope for is to "get OBL", [Osama Bin Ladin] but the jihadist franchise is huge and flush with cash. Meanwhile, Americans continue giving aggrieved people in southwest Asia compelling reasons to say yes to jihadist recruiters and fight back. Besides, they're doing quite well without OBL's micromanagement. [interesting point worth contemplating. Oh, also who will be the Alliance of the Unwilling for Afghanistanam?]

If Mr. Obama's stated intention to move forces from Iraq to Afghanistan is an interim measure, an effort to get Americans used to the idea that reality and events must finally take the front seat in strategic decision making, and is a stepping stone to nailing down or imposing if necessary, a future Israel - Palestine accord that ends the mortal threats posed by the US/Israel alliance against the Palestinians, then sign me up. I am sure millions of others would sign up too. This is the biggest obstacle to the US being able to rehabilitate itself today. There will be no 'win' in 'Afghanistan'. But what the US can do is maneuver itself into a morally, strategically, and financially defensible position by doing what should have been done 25 years ago, when instead, the US aided Israel's first invasion of Lebanon and ramped up funding for the construction and 'security' of encroaching settlements. Then, and only then, will the US see any reasonable chance slowing down jihadist recruitment, and the freeing up the minds and resources which need to be re-focused on tackling other, possibly insurmountable problems: climate-change related catastrophes, a crumbling economy, reducing reliance on petroleum (poisonous is so may ways), and the loss of influence and respect which has strategically crippled the country.
One more thing, to those that screech: "You want to throw the settlers under the bus!” I say "who has been throwing who under the bus all these years?" Faith-fueled settlers in the West Bank have shown a tireless willingness to throw the Palestinians under the proverbial bus. They have demonstrated their willingness to throw all of us under the bus, and demand that I help pay for it. That is not acceptable. [Take that Israeli Lobby – Major Hanafin]

The bottom line. We must prove to those who would Attack America, that it is not in there Interest to do so. Using Violence to deal with violence has not solved the problem. We must reward good behavior, not just punish bad Behavior. Much of what Obama says sounds good, but Democrats must Act on their words. [This appears to be a hard lesson learned when Democrats were given control of Congress in 2006, then failed to deliver. Major Hanafin].

You don't have be an expert on this; America is viewed as a threat because of this administration. We need to rebuild our own infrastructure, get a lot people back to work, get our house (the government) in order.

Pulling troops out would create more problems. Pulling the troops out is exactly what will be needed in the near future. As that country grows it will see our troops as Occupiers. If we have to leave our troops there, then we should be prepared to recommend the draft to relieve the strain of the military. Whether it is Obama or McCain, the civilian leader has to lead, the Generals follow orders of the civilian leader, they can recommend, they can not order the civilian leader. McCain would say this if he were President. If we have to fight Iran, then our position is weakened especially if Al Qaeda is nipping at our heels. Think about it! We either rebuild our military using existing forces or expand it in the form of a draft - either way it will cost B$, with economy already weak, do you think we can afford it, without raising taxes or killing the Bush tax breaks. Can't have the oil and cake they don't mix well when served. Would you have preferred that the world prefer John McCain because of ties with Bush or the way the world views America?

Keeping troops in Iraq or Afghanistan simply means perpetual war. We are repeating the Soviets' mistakes in Afghanistan and have initiated a new era of imperialism and colonialism in the Middle East. These countries don't belong to us. Ron Paul was right, as long as we are over there interfering in other people's countries, the threat of terrorism will continue. Can we really afford to police the entire world, while our own economy and infrastructure are collapsing? It's ludicrous when McCain talks about victory. Victory for what? To keep the Iraqis under our thumb [as occupied puppets] or to ensure that we keep bases there for a 100 years so we can better plunder their oil resources. For a so-called Christian country, it is really strange that no one talks about the morality of our conduct in these countries where thousands of innocent men, women and children have been killed as the direct result of our actions. [Sounds like another Christian against the Christian Coalition. Decent and right on points, however, the American people DO NOT WANT TO HEAR THE TRUTH! Major Hanafin]

Many people were angry that he had not gone to Iraq. Senator McCain - a very angry man who has been showing his temper as of late - made a huge issue of it. Now that Barack Obama is making the trip, everyone, and especially John McCain, is hopping mad again. I'm so very impressed at all this indignant anger. Just think what kind of president John McCain will make, getting mad at world leaders when they don't do what he wants, and then getting even angrier when they do. What a special kind of disposition you must have to be able to vent your anger so often, barely keeping it hidden at times behind that teeth-gritting smile.  Dowd said it best today "The Angry One can try to paint The One as having bad judgment. But who is being advised by Kissinger, the man who helped keep us in Vietnam and get us into Iraq?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/opinion/23dowd.html?ex=1374552000&en=d50bd6a21626e039&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Obama 08! [Sounds more like electioneering than logic. Like, whom would you prefer the real John McCain or John McCain-light without the temper. THAT will surly have swing voters supporting Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, or staying home. Major Hanafin]

Some thought Obama helped himself politically.
Must be the same folks who've made all the other projections upon Obama. Obama's policy is what used to be termed the Enclave Theory in Vietnam: withdraw to permanent bases and only come out to protect The Oil. Take the troops freed up by this maneuver and prosecute the war against Afghani civilians. And open a new front against Pakistani civilians. McCain is a better candidate than Obama. But of course neither one is acceptable because there are at least two genuine anti-war candidates running for POTUS in November. If you claim to be anti-war you had better vote for an anti-war candidate. I'm voting for Ralph Nader, and urge you too to do so.

[THAT is much more convincing than the previous Obama 2008 sloganeering. I seriously believe Obama has hurt himself with the swing vote. Our military family is certainly not going to vote for John McCain, but is having third thoughts about Obama. This is not the first time we’ve questioned his CLARITY. Major Hanafin]

Moveon was never a peace organization
Moveon was never a peace group. It was originally started by businessmen to move the country towards the center, and supported moderate to conservative Democrats, the kind that support