Home › Blogs › lissaht's blog ›

Through the Looking Glass and into the Fire: Afghanistan and America's longest war

Submitted by lissaht on Fri, 07/16/2010 - 4:33pm

What a difference nine (and counting) years make. Sort of like stepping through the proverbial looking glass: it turns out that nothing is as it seems. Good wars turn out to be bad ones; a righteous cause is revealed to be baseless; we sacrifice on the altar of our presumption the very people whom we say we are trying to save, whose hearts and minds we say we aspire to win. Oh, we swear up and down that they matter, but they don’t. Not really. Otherwise we would have probably made a greater effort to stop killing what the now disgraced General McChrystal characterized as an “amazing” number of them.

Sure, they all look alike – raggedy and dusty and like they live in a country that’s been bombed into the Stone Age. . . . Oh, right. It has been bombed into the Stone Age. Or it's dark and they have guns. Oh, and what about that unfortunate habit of theirs of shooting off guns to celebrate a wedding or driving rapidly towards checkpoints while gesticulating wildly – never advisable given our understandably jumpy troops. And what’s with the bad guys not wearing uniforms? That way you’d at least know who’s side somebody’s on before he. . . say . . . blows himself up so as to take out you and a few of your buddies.

The crux of the problem is that we’re out of sync: we’re waging a war and they’re . . . well . . . they’re messin’ with us. Let’s face it. The Afghanis are wedged in between a rock and a hard place with nary an iota of wiggle room. If they co-operate with NATO forces, the Taliban does bad things to them; if they co-operate with the Taliban, NATO troops do bad things to them. It’s what you might call a lose/lose situation. The only way to chose between two, very painful evils is proximity – the guys who are within striking distance. . . . That’s who you side with. For the time they are within striking distance. The hearts and minds of the Afghanis aren’t for sale; they’re for rent. By the hour. And, frankly, under those circumstances, mine would be too.

The United Nations recently published the results of a study to determine the prevalence of drug use in Afghanistan. It reveals that 800,000 Afghans, 7% of the adult population of 14 million, are drug users – a disturbingly high percentage when compared to other countries and one that is steadily rising.

Under the circumstances, who can blame them?

Obama established an end time to our involvement in Afghanistan back in December 2009. It can’t come soon enough. It’s time we picked up our toys and went home.

Tagged:

Comments

Couldn't agree more...

Submitted by Stan on Sat, 07/17/2010 - 3:20pm.

Out! Now! Bring our troops home and let the afghans sort it out. They're not a particularly passive people. If they decide they don't like the Taliban, they'll do something about it. Before we go we should arm every woman with a glock they can carry under their burqas so when some man tries to abuse her she can blast him and go out swinging rather than be led away to slaughter.

Stan Bozarth

Amen.

Submitted by lissaht on Sat, 07/17/2010 - 3:34pm.

Amen.

Melissa Hardy

This is a headscratcher actually

Submitted by James McCrum on Sat, 07/17/2010 - 4:24pm.

It looks like this war in Afghanistan is about as popular on both sides of the political aisle as the DADT policy these days. It is a headscratcher really that we continue to expend so much money and continue to put our troops at further risk in an effort that is decidedly frivolous at best. If our efforts were keeping us safe here at home I could back our efforts. That isn't the case. Not even our homeland security department thinks that. In a year there is no excuse for america having any kind of military involvement in either Iraq or Afghanistan. This money can be better spent on needs at home and the troops can be better utilized controlling our boarder after a comprehensive immigration reform bill can be passed. Melissa has a good message here.

Talk About Disappointment From the Democrats

Submitted by Minarchist (not verified) on Sat, 07/17/2010 - 4:05pm.

Now that the Democrats are in power, they miraculously can't take their foot off of the war pedal.

...two wings on the same bird of prey.

"established an end time"

Submitted by Jake Gellar-Goad on Sat, 07/17/2010 - 4:19pm.

Obama established an end time to our involvement in Afghanistan back in December 2009. It can’t come soon enough.

At this point I'm certainly with the sooner we get out, the better crowd. But I also recognize the time table to leave Democrats are better than the indefinite war/we oppose a time table Republicans.

And when Burr's website says we need several more years of war, and Elaine's says she opposed the surge, I think I'm still playing for the right team even if I think we need to trade out some players.

Assumptions...

Submitted by Minarchist (not verified) on Sat, 07/17/2010 - 7:09pm.

I thought I spoke with the assumption that everyone knew the Republicans (save maybe 4 or 5) were already a disappointment on foreign policy.

I just particularly can't stand the democrats like David Price (my congressmen) who still thinks Afghanistan is the good war. Actually, as I checked back to his site just now, it appears he has modified the Afghanistan page and has done everything he can to make excuses for his pro-war record (full well knowing that Lawson has him beat on this issue). My favorite part about him, though, is how he touts his reigning in of government contractors in the middle east...and at the same time is taking money from Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.

I agree that its not a good war

Submitted by Jake Gellar-Goad on Sat, 07/17/2010 - 8:12pm.

in fact I think there's no such thing. But Lawson is anything but a good candidate to represent the triangle area. Pulling from an old Price campaign e-mail I found posted here on BlueNC:

* TAX FAIRNESS: Lawson opposes progressive income taxation, and corporate, capital gains, and estate taxes. He opposes the mortgage, medical expense, and charitable contribution tax deductions, and the student loan, earned income, and child tax credits.

* THE FINANCIAL CRISIS: Lawson advocates abolition of the Federal Reserve, the nation's central banking system that regulates our monetary policy and helps prevent banking panics. And he suggests that the United States should revert to schemes similar to the gold standard, regional currencies, and even the barter system.

* ECONOMIC SAFETY NET: Lawson believes "the safety net for individuals should be eliminated," and supports elimination or at least privatization of Social Security and Medicare. Just this July, he said that he has "not yet found any significant disagreements" with his political mentor Ron Paul, who has consistently and repeatedly called for the eventual abolition of Social Security and Medicare.

* EDUCATION: Lawson believes there should be no federal role in education. He advocates elimination of the Department of Education. He even opposes low interest student loans, believing they are "distorting the economics of higher education."

* RESEARCH: Lawson opposes federal funding for all medical research – even current work to understand and combat diseases like cancer, diabetes, and Parkinson's. He opposes funding for research on both existing and new lines of stem cells – a position to the right of George W. Bush.

* HEALTH CARE: Lawson opposes the expansion of children's health care and tax incentives for employer-provided health insurance.

* ENVIRONMENT: Lawson opposes strengthening the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, even after the past eight years of weakening by the Bush Administration. He opposes federal action to encourage the development of alternative fuels.

* FOREIGN POLICY: Lawson's isolationist views would eliminate all foreign aid (including current efforts to prevent and treat HIV-AIDS and malaria in Africa and tsunami relief in South Asia), withhold our financial obligations to the United Nations, and abandon military and all other efforts in Afghanistan.

* PUBLIC SAFETY: Rather than calling for obviously needed reforms in the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Lawson has actually called for the elimination of FEMA. This would leave states and communities on their own to deal with natural and man-made disasters. Because North Carolina is very disaster-prone, our state would be especially hard hit by such an extreme step.

* CHOICE: Lawson's defense of liberty stops with reproductive freedom; he would allow government to dictate these personal and family decisions. He favors repeal of Roe v. Wade and opposes a woman's right to choose, even in the case of rape or incest.

He's anti-gay marriage too and from what I read here on BlueNC he threw his hat in with the slim conservative majority of the Wake County school board in opposing their socioeconomic diversity policy. Lawson's website encourages extending the Bush tax cuts, and I have trouble imagining he'd work to fight the Citizen's United ruling, and with issues of energy, the environment, and climate change coming to the forefront I notice it isn't an issue listed on Lawson's site's issues section.

And there are so many blatant falsehoods in that e-mail alone

Submitted by Minarchist (not verified) on Sat, 07/17/2010 - 9:45pm.

...but when has bad information ever stopped David Price?

I understand that democrats might have a hard time stomaching some of Lawson's economic views...but can they stomach voting for a pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-war on drugs, PATRIOT Act voting Democrat?

The whole idea of voting for the lesser of two evils has always bugged me...on both sides. Whenever I hear Republicans talking about how they'd rather vote for a crappy unprincipled Republican (like Gingrich/Romney/etc.) than someone they actually want, I want to scream. They somehow think think that by constantly voting for the less crappy of two (crappy) candidates that the government is going to turn out something other than crappy.

That's what so disappointing about so many democrats. On the things that I agree with them on (anti-war, pro-drug legalization, anti-death penalty, marriage equality, etc.)...when they actually HAVE the power to change it, they don't. Want an economic stimulus? Write your reps and tell them that you voted for them in '08, but won't again unless they remove US troops from bases in 200+ countries, thus effectively eliminating our $1 trillion+/year disastrous foreign policy. Maybe then talks over which domestic programs to keep will become slightly more productive.

Well I know

Submitted by Jake Gellar-Goad on Sun, 07/18/2010 - 2:00pm.

the issue of federal education/research funding in the triangle area came up at the debate, and I believe he was opposed. I asked him in person about gay marriage which he opposes.

I looked up his abortion stance on a more right leaning website to balance out the left leaning e-mail:
http://aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=13016&posts=2

On the right-to-life issue the GOP candidates are divided into two camps. Frank Roche, William (B.J.) Lawson, and George Hutchins take the position that Roe v. Wade should be overturned so that the states can decide the abortion issue.

The incumbent, David Price of Chapel Hill, is an advocate of abortion rights. He has represented the 4th District in Congress continuously since 1987 except for 1995 and 1996.

I looked up his indy questionnaire responses, and in a past one he dodged the question of lgbt equality b/c the questioner used the termonology of gay rights, so he just said that rights don't come from being a part of a group and left it at that. He could have easily said a more libertarian answer like the federal government shouldn't be making rules like doma that bar states from fully deciding whether or not they want to offer marriage equality, or I oppose federal laws like don't ask don't tell, but he didn't.

He appears to have been asked again for this election and a part of his answer was "Sexual preference between consenting adults is not the concern of the federal government" as in the government shouldn't be concerned with people who choose to be gay. My guess is his libertarian streak would make him anti-matthew sheppard act & anti employment non discrimination too (not sure where he'd end up on UAFA, but I don't see him going out of his way to make it a priority). He did say he was now against dadt, but the dadt repeal has already passed in the house. Finding anyone in NC who will stand up for lgbt equality isn't easy, I'm not willing to trade such a rarity out for someone who clearly doesn't. And where would Lawson's libertarian stands put him on climate change, on regulating big oil, on regulating corporate spending in elections/campaign finance reform, on low interest student loans/education/research funding? There is just no way I can ever vote for Lawson. I am not defending Price's foreign policy stances and I believe I could respect someones decision to sit out the election b/c they find faults with both options though, if that was their decision. As a side note I am not a fan of Lawson's nobody home video where he shows up at one of the 3 offices Price has in the main population centers of his constituency without an appointment and then makes a big deal out of Price not being there. Struck me as very disingenuous. Its labeled with "Attempts to reach out to our local Representative on a historic day were met with a dark office and closed door."

http://thatsmycongress.com/house/repPriceNC4111.html

H.R. 2517

Since the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in the 1990s, successive Congresses have made it clear, either loudly or meekly, that there is no intention to give same-sex couples the right to marry at the federal level. H.R. 2517, also known as the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, would grant same-sex domestic partners of federal workers the same benefits as federal workers' different-sex spouses. For proponents of equality under law in America, this is a step forward for same-sex couples, albeit at a less ambitious scale than full-fledged same-sex marriage.

Rep. Price has acted progressively by cosponsoring this bill.

H.R. 3567

If passed, the Respect for Marriage Act of 2009 (H.R. 3567) would repeal DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. Enacted in the 1990s, DOMA removed the presumption (based in the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution) that same-sex marriages carried out in one state would be recognized in other states or by the federal government. H.R. 3567 would restore cross-state and federal recognition, recognition that different-sex marriages continue to enjoy.

Rep. Price has acted progressively by cosponsoring this bill.

H.R. 3017

It might seem that the USA is moving beyond discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transexuals. Yet, it's still legal for people to be fired from their jobs for no other reason than that they aren't heterosexual.

H.R. 3017 would make it illegal to engage in discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation.

Rep. Price has acted progressively by cosponsoring this bill.

Patrick Amendment to H.R. 5136

Substantively, the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy weakens the strained U.S. military by kicking people out with good service records. There is a more formal problem with DADT as well: the policy to discriminate, to kick people out of the military because of their sexual orientation, is a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Patrick Murphy's amendment to repeal the policy is an amendment not only lending substantive benefit to the military and to lesbian and gay servicemembers, but also providing strength to constitutional government.

Rep. Price has acted progressively by voting YES to pass this measure.

H.R. 1024

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. These are the American standards of nondiscrimination, chiseled into our legal bedrock in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. How seriously do members of Congress take this section of the U.S. Constitution? H.R. 1024 is a test.

H.R. 1024, the Uniting American Families Act, is a bill which aims to put into closer compliance with the U.S. Constitution by removing discrimination according to the status of permanent couples. According to law, same-sex couples in permanent relationships cannot marry; only different-sex couples can. The creates two classes of couple in the United States. They are separate. Are they equal? Not currently. Under current immigration law, married immigrant spouses of citizens and permanent residents have a preferred route toward gaining permanent resident status themselves. Unmarried partners of citizens and permanent residents have this avenue closed to them. That is unequal treatment under law for immigrants under American jurisdiction, and it is an unequal abridgment of legal privilege for the citizens whose permanent partners wish to join them.

Introduced by New York Democrat Jerrold Nadler, the Uniting American Families Act would end this status discrimination by amending various the immigration laws that discriminate against same-sex couples when one member of a couple is a citizen or permanent resident and the other is seeking citizenship or residency status.

Rep. Price has acted progressively by cosponsoring this bill.

http://goqnotes.com/992/carolinas-leaders-fail-on-lgbt-issues/

Rep. David Price (D-NC), Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) and Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) ranked the highest among their colleagues, with a score of 95 each.

Price & Miller were tied for best in NC.

The average Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Congressional Scorecard ranking for members of the U.S. House from the Carolinas was 30. Close to two-thirds of the House delegations received a zero. Only four received a score of 80 or more.

Of particular note, only one member of the Carolinas delegation, Rep. David Price, voted in favor of legislation that would have provided equal family benefits to LGBT federal civilian employees.

Lesser of two evils

Submitted by James on Sun, 07/18/2010 - 10:51am.

Comparing Price to Lawson on these terms is like comparing getting a haircut to having your head chopped off. I don't agree with David Price on every issue, but I agree with BJ Lawson on none.

You can rail all you want against partisan voting, but the sad truth is, the majority party has infinitely more power in the the US House. If BJ Lawson were to be in Congress with a Republican majority, we'd have a moron named Boehner as speaker of the house. The only thing I can think of that would be worse is Little Patrick McHenry were to accidentally find himself in charge of something besides his personal bodily functions.

So You Are...

Submitted by Minarchist (not verified) on Sun, 07/18/2010 - 12:23pm.
  • Pro-Occupation of Afghanistan
  • Pro-Federal Death Penalty
  • Pro-War on Drugs/Prohibition
  • Pro-PATRIOT Act
  • Pro-Big Banks
  • Pro-Big Business

I didn't realize that self-described progressives stood for all of that! Thanks for the clarification!

But seriously...have fun knowing that your vote is helping kill men, women, and children all across the Middle East in the name of "freedom". Have fun knowing that your vote is helping to incarcerate and kill blacks at a far higher rate than whites. Have fun knowing that your vote will allow citizens to be detained without due process. Have fun knowing that your vote will allow big banks to continue to be bailed out at your expense. Have fun knowing that your vote is enabling a man whose campaign funded by more corporate interests than actual small donors.

Sorry, but I don't want all that on my conscience.

PS, it's quite nice to see you already realizing the possibility of losing the majority in the next election.

Old arguments

Submitted by scharrison on Sun, 07/18/2010 - 1:30pm.

BJ and his supporters have made all these arguments and accusations here at BlueNC over two years ago. They didn't succeed then, and they won't succeed now.

You know why? Because we look at everything a candidate stands for, not just a select set of issues that may happen to overlap with our interests. Like most Libertarians, BJ doesn't arrive at those (common) goals out of compassion; they are an artifact of an extreme anti-government ideology.

For Progressives to support BJ would not be unlike the hangman and the accused commiserating on how pompous and long-winded the priest is. If BJ had his way, most of the things we believe in would become impossible to maintain or achieve.

I'm not trying to convince anyone here of anything

Submitted by Minarchist (not verified) on Sun, 07/18/2010 - 1:53pm.

I'm just out to show that there ARE places we CAN agree and work together. That's why you see someone like Ron Paul co-sponsoring bills with Barney Frank. Or Alan Grayson co-sponsoring bills with Walter Jones. Hell, you even had Rand Paul announce he was running on Rachel Maddow's show (months before the infamous interview). Of course I don't expect us to agree on everything. I just find it aggravating seeing someone so blinded as James say that he has nothing in common with BJ.

As for looking at the whole platform, I agree...that's why I detest single issue voting. With that being said, the most important issue for me personally at the moment is foreign policy, seeing as we spend waste more money on that than anything else. People like Ron Paul might go back in to relative obscurity like he was in the 80's/90's if our economic situation wasn't so bad. However, we have rubber stampers like David Price who continue to vote for war after war, eventually putting us trillions in debt. If we weren't in the situation we were in now, I probably wouldn't even mind being represented by someone like Grayson or Kucinich. At least then, my representative may actually make some noise in Washington.

My mind just gets boggled trying to imagine a progressive candidate posting on a conservative forum...or even any other conservative candidate posting on a progressive forum in an effort to actually find common ground. That's why I was so surprised to see BJ had done so here before I even moved to the area. Of course, many cast him aside with your "well if we had it your way" line of thinking...when you CLEARLY know that he will NOT have his way as some first term congressman from a non-notable district. You and I both know that even if the Republicans took a majority in the house, BJ would not be a rubber stamp for the party (and the same could be said for a Grayson/Kucinich/Gravel). That's why I can at least respect them, whereas I can't say the same for Price.

Also,

For Progressives to support BJ would not be unlike the hangman and the accused commiserating on how pompous and long-winded the priest is.

lol

I think BJ was surprised, too

Submitted by scharrison on Sun, 07/18/2010 - 2:22pm.

That's why I was so surprised to see BJ had done so here before I even moved to the area.

And I think he was pleased when he was (for the most part) dealt with and debated with respectfully here. But from reading this blog, Minarchist, you know that James doesn't support those issues you listed above, which means most of that comment falls into the argumentum ad hominem and/or Straw Man category. Which is neither respectful nor productive.

And the fact that this conversation is even taking place says something about our approach to information exchange, and our willingness to engage with a broader spectrum of belief sets. We may not dance to the tune, but we let the music play, nonetheless.

BJ

Submitted by James on Sun, 07/18/2010 - 3:46pm.

even came to my house to talk to my friends and me about his candidacy ... he was invited by a BlueNC regular. It was an interesting discussion, but not productive. He stated his positions, which are clearly Libertarian in almost every sense of the word, but couldn't defend running as a Republican because ... well, we all know that Libertarians have no chance of winning anything. So right there he demonstrated a willingness to sell out his principles in order to get elected ... which he has been doing ever since from what I can tell.