In World War II, the countries at war sent their military forces to battle. In this sense, whether the result of democratically-elected governments or other forms of national decision-making, the wars were between countries.

In Afghanistan, our fight was with al Qaeda, a wholly separate entity (from the Afghan military). That point may have been lost in the initial fighting, when the Taliban government probably did send its troops to battle. But once the Taliban government was overthrown (very quickly as you’ll recall), we continued to do battle in that country, and since that time (for eight years now) we have not been fighting the Afghan military but are, in fact, allied with them.

My point is that we went to war in Afghanistan, not against Afghanistan.

It may not be a meaningful distinction to those killed or whose lives are destroyed by the conflict, but it does serve to put the lie to Obama’s preposterous attempt to legitimize his actions.

-Ed

Interesting post. I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over what your guy said–he really doesn’t believe it. He was backed into his own surge by his campaign position on the Afghan conflict, the success of the Iraq surge, and McCrystal’s leaking of the troops numbers he believed he needed to replicate that result. His Oslo speach, soon to be forgotten, was a niffty way of tamping down a delicious story for Fox News while still being able to accept his seven-figure prize (at least the North Vietnamese stood by their communist vow of poverty).

Having taken my obligatory jab, what really peaked my interest was your analysis and ultimate conclusion regarding the comparison of the Afghan conflict with World War II–as you put it, “the real story.” You conclude that we did not go to war with the country of Afghanistan, only its government. Therefore, the WWII comparison fails and the Afghan war is unjust.

This begs the question, “just how does one go to war against a whole country and not just its government?” Presumably, we did so in WWII, making that conflict “just” or at least tolerable. The attack on Pearl Harbor was sanctioned by the Japanese government and executed by its military, an organization it harbored and supported. Shortly thereafter, war was declared upon the U.S. by the government of Germany. As a result, we engaged in armed conflicts with both nations, vanquished their militaries, dismantled the offending governments, killed a lot of people (both combatants and noncombatants) and occupied both countries for years (we’re still present in both).

At what point and/or on what basis did we go to war with the countries of Japan and Germany and fail to do so with the country of Afghanistan?

But, Roshawn, you may want to clarify you last post. On the one hand, you seem to agree with Jim (and me) that war begets war and that more war begets more war, while on the other you clearly express support for Obama’s escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

I’ll leave aside the fact that you thereby seem to be supportive of him even as you continue to imply that you’d far rather have someone else in the office he holds.

But inconsistencies aside, thanks as always for your contribution.

-Ed

Ed your response to ashley i think is just another excuse for the president. but lets be clear, the president is the commander in chief, and although this president didn’t start the war i’m sure he was apprised of the situation.

Modern warefare has become a horribly misused tool. as per jim, war begets more war, unless you completely destroy your opponent. this is where the misuse tradegy starts, because some politician thinks he can be smart enough to have our military beat up another military and that will fix the problem or at least open channels of communication, he doesn’t realize that it in most cases it is a temporary fix. because they were trying to “strategically” attack someone and not completely destroy the enimy (humanity says that would not be right) , many of the enimy remain and waite until they can attack again.

You can’t blame the millitary or anyone in it. the military is tool for use by the Presiden and use, nonuse, or even misuse is the sole responsibility of the President. Jim I don’t like war either but you do have to have a military that is capable of waging war even if it is only used for defense. jim in this case the troop build up is the only thing that can be done. we can’t afford to lose the war and we certainly can’t just turn the place into a glass bowl.

Bottom line Ed, you are starting to disagree more and more with the President, is there a point were you will decide that you don’t want him to be your President any more?

Disagreement ≠ Distrust

It just looks like the same pattern — get in a war, put your trust in the generals, find out they miscalculated and then try to figure out how to avoid losing, which leads to a greater military commitment with all the concomitant negatives escalating while the war continues unabated.

I’m afraid, regardless of intelligence he had available that the rest of us don’t, that he has just made a terrible decision that will lead to even tougher ones down the line.

-Ed

Not.

But is anyone really surprised about this? Talk is cheap, after all.

I always get a little suspicious when a politician starts making all kinds of noise about bringing “change” and “I’m going to immediately end this war and provide everyone with free healthcare and a puppy” primarily because nothing ever really changes. Politicians, on both sides, are usually just bobble-heads, they will tell you whatever you want to hear. They’re either lying or don’t know that there are so many forces at play that they’re really powerless to do anything.

Good for you for not giving Obama a free pass on this issue, Professor Telfeyan!

BUT, experience has taught me that there are at least two sides to every story (and usually it’s three or more).

Honestly, I can’t say whether his policy re Afghanistan is good or bad or somewhere in between. I don’t know what his administration knows. I think it’s important to consider that there is a lot of intelligence that we aren’t privy to– My parents are both federal agents and there is a whole lot of shit they simply cannot talk about. Information that you won’t hear on CNN and can’t find on Google.

Of course, his actions need to be based on the best evidence available. And he has to have credible advisors. If Obama’s policy is based on good intel, then I’m glad he isn’t afraid to make policy decisions or take action based on that, irrespective of what he may have said in his speeches or while on the campaign trail.

There’s no shame in changing direction based on new evidence, so long as it’s reliable.

Good discussion!