Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Thursday, March 01, 2007

Republicans Refuse To Debate GOP Cut and Run From Afghanistan

Ref Ref It's curious to compare the GOP "concern" with the Iraq issues; and contrast them with the opposite approach with Afghanistan.

"The idea that withdrawing from Iraq would endanger Karzai and Musharraf's fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda is just laughable." -- Glenn Greenwald Ref

Ref US installed anti-democratic warlords, then ran away. SO much for staying the couse on democracy and reconstruction in Afghanistan.

Ref Republicans did "such a good job" at cutting and running from Afghanistan, that they're pointing to NATO as "really important" in the war on terror. Part of the GOP plan to blame everone else for this President's reckless abandonment of Afghanistan. NATO was for reconstruction before the President was against it.

* * *

The GOP arguments about Iraq and Afghanistan are non-sense.

The Republicans are raising issue of "abandonment" in Iraq; without defending of justifying their cut and run from Afghanistan.

Another diversion. What may or may not happen in Iraq is not news: The Afghans heard the news the first time -- our "friends" in the GOP aren't their friends, unless the GOP needs a smokescreen.

* * *

1. GOP fails to explain their cut and run from Afghanistan

The US had already abandoned Afghanistan when it entered Iraq. Talking about "what might" happen with a change in Iraq is backwards: The US isn't sending new information to the Afghans. It's not speculative what the US has done in Afghanistan; talking about the "lesson of Iraq for Afghans" asks us to believe a fiction: That the Afghans didn't learn the first time what the US was doing in Afghanistan: Abandoning, cutting and running, and not staying the course.

2. US Abandoned Afghanistan: Afghans have no need to wait for lessons

It's absurd for the US leadership to focus on the "example of Iraq" as the Afghans may apply it. Afghans don't need to wait for the US to make a decision on Iraq to know whether the US will or will not say the course. Before there was an excuse of Iraq, the Afghans learned America would abandon Afghanistan.

It is an illusion that the Afghans are looking to the future to see whether the US will or will not do something-- our "friends' In the GOP gave them the history they won't forget: Abandonment.

3. No accountability for the cut and running in Afghanistan

Curious that the GOP ignored the accusations of "cutting and running" in Afghanistan. The facts prove: The US government and our "friends" in the GOP abandoned Afghanistan, and want to blame [wait for it] someone else.

4. Speculative Fears About Iraq; Smokescreen From Certain Abandonment in Afghanistan

The GOP requires convoluted logic to focused on Iraq, but ignore their abandonment of the Afghans.

The smokescreen is a classic shell game inside a magic hat: Constantly moving arguments, not solid position, and eternally shifting accountability. And the GOP would have us believe the illusion that they are powerful. The require more November 2006-rebukes to awaken them from their stupidity.

* * *

This is classic GOP diversionary tactics. First they abandon Afghanistan; then they bungle Iraq; then Afghans get used as part of the argument to continue with what is folly.

The White House is pointing to Afghanistan, asking that we ignore the abandonment; but asks the Afghans to point to Iraq, "We don't want bad things in Iraq; we might take the wrong lesson." That's a stupid shell game argument. The Afghans should be insulted that they are being used and not respected.

A. The Afghans learned first hand what the US is capable;

B. What may or may not happen in Iraq isn't a new lesson for Afghanistan: The Afghans have been abandoned. The question of whether the US does or does not adjust policy in Iraq in no way changes the news the Afghans have: The US abandoned them. The Afghans don’t need new information to conclude what the US suggests "might be a conclusion" if the US doesn't cooperate with more folly in Iraq.

The GOP cannot credibly point to speculative outcomes or lessons for Afghans as a basis to argue for or against a policy in Iraq. The lessons that the Afghans might learn -- regardless what the US does or doesn't do in Iraq -- have been well taught: The US did, has, and will abandon the Afghans. The decision point on whether the US leadership should or should not act Iraq is not a function of how the Afghans might react in the future to a potential message. They have the information now; and there is not basis to change the decision point to a second milestone; nor wait for a speculative conclusion which the Afghans with certainty have.

* * *

The game is to divert Congressional focus from the White House war crimes, and get the Congress to argue over Afghanistan and Iraq:

___ What are the lessons

___ What might happen

___ How do we explain away bad things

___ How do we blame others

___ How do we ignore what we did in one situation; but pretend that the same folly in another location is the fault of someone else

___ How do we get people to forget what the US did do in Afghanistan; but focus on the speculation about what may or may not happen in Iraq

___ How do we get people to forget the certain lessons Afghans learned after the US abandoned them; but pretend that the Afghans are "waiting around" for the Iraqi lessons to tell them what they already know: The US will abandon, did abandon, but pretend it is someone else's responsibility.

* * *

A Single Thought Saying the above in one sentence

If the claims that "what may or may not happen in Afghanistan" should or should not be basis to argue for what should or should not happen in Iraq, then our "friends" in the GOP erred: They ignored what could happen in Afghanistan; cut and ran to Iraq; then argue, because the GOP abandoned Afghanistan, the US should say committed to that abandonment, but pretend the abandonment is speculative.

- -

. . . does your head hurt? If not, look at a map and dance your eyes between Iraq and Afghanistan. Back and forth: Between Afghanistan and Iraq. When you star getting sick, there's one person you can blame: The President.

* * *

Shell Game Objective: Distract Attention For Ignored-Lessons-Learned

As with the bungled Iraq invasion planning, what lessons did the US ignore in re Afghanistan:

___ Deposit the "big lessons" of the Russian involvement in Afghanistan; which of the lessons did the US government have, but ignored? Ref

___ When the US government reviewed Sept 2001, and "concluded" that the "abandonment of the Taliban" led to AlQueda, what is to be said of a government that does the same -- abandons -- and ignores the lessons of (1) 9-11; and (2) the Russians; and (3) the events that supposedly prompted the Taliban and AlQueda to mobilize [foreign intervention, abuse, blow back]

* * *

Recurring Problem

Ref US ignores lessons learned; then attempts to blame someone else.

Supposedly it was the "big lesson learned" from 9-11, that the US cannot, as it did in Afghanistan, abandon people; or let people conclude that the US is going to abuse them. That lesson was lost despite the so called "big review" of the Russian legacy; and ignored against after Sept 2001, not blocking the US abandonment of Afghanistan; and is again getting ignored when reviewing the issues of 9-11,and what needs to be fixed.

This it the definition of an unresponsive, reckless, and incompetent government. When things aren't fixed, the bad situation will spiral down into a disaster: War crimes, combat, and destruction of infrastructure on the battlefield.

The idea of the law is to act as a guide. This leadership asserts it is for the law, but refuses to punish the President when he wanders outside his lane. Those who refuse to confront the past, are doomed to having it repeated on them