Archive for afghan war

Hopelessly over-optimistic wishes for 2013

wishful thinking fingers crossed smaller

Every January 1st,  the L.A. Times has a tradition of posting a list of their wishes, many which coincide with my own. Most never get fulfilled, some get partially granted, and others come true.

Here are a few samples from this year’s “over-optimistic” wishes and hopes. Last year, five of their 27 dreams came true. This time the Times includes wishes for:

The almost unimaginably tragic deaths of 20 elementary school children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut — at the hands of an emotionally disturbed young man armed with an arsenal of weapons — to finally prove the catalyst for action rather than just words when it comes to meaningful gun control legislation.

The IRS and the Federal Election Commission to put a stop to special-interest groups making a mockery of campaign finance laws by collecting and spending huge donations anonymously through PACs disguised as charities.

The U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8 once and for all, eliminating the ban on same-sex marriage in California. While they’re at it, the justices should do away with the section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that denies federal benefits to same-sex couples who are legally wed in their home states.

Further progress in extricating U.S. military forces from Afghanistan, so that the U.S. and its allies can transfer responsibility for security to Afghan forces even earlier than the projected 2014 deadline.

The Supreme Court to reaffirm the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires states with a history of racial discrimination to clear changes in their election procedures with the Justice Department or a federal court.

Congress to hammer out a plan to overhaul the nation’s dysfunctional immigration system that would provide a path to citizenship for the 11 million people who are already here illegally and also provide for enforcement of immigration laws at the workplace and along the border.

Congress to treat problems as problems, rather than opportunities to push the nation to the brink. Enough with the “fiscal cliff” and debt-ceiling crises. How about some genuine commitment to solving problems?

An end to congressional threats to defund Planned Parenthood.

More at the link.

U.S. force in Afghanistan may be smaller than expected after 2014

Via Kevin Frayer/Associated Press

Despite some commanders saying more U.S. troops are needed in Afghanistan, President Obama could very well keep the numbers much lower than they’d prefer, per the L.A. Times:

The Obama administration plans on keeping 6,000 to 9,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistanafter 2014, fewer than previously reported, and will confine most of them to fortified garrisons near the capital, leaving Afghan troops largely without American advisors in the field to fight a still-powerful insurgency, U.S. officials said.

Although it is not final, contours of the plan have become increasingly clear in the weeks since President Obama’s reelection. Officials close to the discussions say the final U.S. presence will be substantially smaller than the 15,000 troops senior commanders have sought to keep after most of the 68,000 remaining American troops leave in the next two years. [...]

Bagram will become the hub for U.S. special operations teams charged with tracking and killing members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, the chief American military mission after the drawdown. Bagram also will be the main air base for U.S. drones and other combat aircraft in Afghanistan, the officials said.

Zero troops would be a good number, too. In fact, it seems President Obama agrees, but unfortunately, that’s just wishful thinking:

“One of the things that Obama and Karzai have always agreed on is the need for a reduced force presence,” a U.S. official said. “I could see them both wanting zero, but at the end of the day I don’t think that will happen.”

Details here.

VIDEO: Romney’s Afghanistan reversal a disqualifying character issue

First, the surprising and news-making reversal of Mitt Romney on Afghanistan, and some initial reaction to the debate:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Next, the commentary:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

On the Tee Vee machine so far today, what I’m seeing from political commentators is that Romney simply “shifted to a more moderate, more appealing” position as opposed to completely and hypocritically reversing himself two weeks before Election Day.

He has zero credibility. He cannot be trusted, he cannot be believed. He’ll say anything he thinks voters want to hear.

Rachel Maddow nailed it:

“…68,000 American lives on the line… This is a real war... This is changing your mind… about the fate, the lives and deaths, of 68,000 Americans… and that you can get away with running from the things that you’ve previously claimed were your heartfelt beliefs and now denying that you ever believed they were true. It’s a character issue and I find it disqualifying.”

“It’s an existing war. It’s not hypothetical.”

Top senators, including Republicans, can’t explain Mitt Romney’s Afghanistan policy

I’m guessing that even Willard Romney can’t explain Willard Romney’s Afghanistan policy. Josh Rogin reports that nobody else can either:

Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s policy on the future of U.S.-led war in Afghanistan war is unclear and confusing, complicating attempts to either support or criticize it during the campaign, according to leading senators from both parties. [...]

But when it comes to what a President Romney would do differently from Obama on Afghanistan if and when he became president, the details remain sketchy. [...]

Last week, The Cable asked several senior senators from both parties whether they supported Romney’s plan for Afghanistan. None was able to articulate exactly what that policy is or what the U.S. force in Afghanistan might look like if Romney is elected.

“What is it?” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a Romney supporter and senior member of the Armed Services Committee.  [...]

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said he wasn’t sure exactly what Romney’s Afghanistan policy entailed and didn’t want to get into it

Of course, Team Obama can use this GOP comment stew to compare Romney’s lack of foreign policy experience to the president’s, not to mention Obama’s national security successes *coughBinLadencough*.

Add a big splash of Bain Pain and a big pinch of Where’s the Tax Returns? and a big ol’ slab of Mystery Mittstery Meat and voila! A recipe for Willard Fail.

LIVE VIDEO FEED 3:00 PDT: Congressional candidate Darcy Burner, Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton on Ending the War in Afghanistan.

Flyer link.


Stream videos at Ustream

UPDATE: The time has been changed to 3:00.

Today at 3:15 3:00 Pacific, live feed of retired Maj. General Paul Eaton and congressional candidate Darcy Burner present a special briefing on Ending the War in Afghanistan.

It’s been more than ten years, and we’re fighting a war in there, we are still spending more than $100 billion per year on our military presence. Afghanistan’s economy is only about $14 billion per year. Meanwhile, we need schools and infrastructure built right here at home.

We need a realistic plan for returning control of Afghanistan to the Afghan people.

We’re livestreaming the event here at TPC, and Darcy and Major General Eaton are taking your questions via Twitter hashtag #endwar

This is your chance to be heard. Go.

If by some chance you need revving up, read their joint opinion piece, It’s Time to Bring Our Troops Home from Afghanistan.

And please consider donating to Darcy Burner here. I did.

Bonus Cartoon of the Day- NATO Afghan strategy

Yep. Via.

Video- President’s Weekly Address: A New Chapter in Afghanistan