Obama's Afghan Plan
Posted by Joe Rivett on 12.13.2009
Adding 30,000 troops appears to be the only decision he could make...
Fox News Contributor Susan Estrich wrote an excellent opinion piece about Obama's Afghanistan plan. Her opinion is that she hopes Obama made the right decision. Her ego isn't so large that she believes her opinion matters. She has no access to the intelligence reports that the president has. She isn't an expert on Pakistan. I have the same belief as Ms. Estrich. I voted for Obama because he appeared to show good judgment and intelligence. I didn't vote for him to add or subtract troops from Afghanistan. Clearly, he spent a lot of time to make this decision and at this point, I have to assume that it is the best decision he could make given his options.
Now if Afghanistan goes wrong or gets worse, then Obama will not get my blind support. His credibility will take a hit. I'm sure if Bush was president he would have come to the same conclusion Obama did. However, because Bush lost his credibility with Iraq, the public would have rejected his plan whereas support for Obama's plan is at 57% according to the last poll I read.
This support is crucial because the president's two main functions are commander in chief and the selection of Supreme Court Justices. If Afghanistan improves to where Obama can bring the troops home, with the economy certain to not get any worse, he will be very difficult to defeat in 2012.
In terms of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech, I'm surprised to hear that many thought it was a Neo-Con speech. The idea that America has a responsibility to use force to prevent more dangerous wars/dictators in the world because it is a unipolar power is something that liberals and conservatives have agreed upon since the end of World War II. Sure there will always be the Kucinich's and the Ron Pauls that are isolationist but the Neo-Cons did not invent the idea of America being the world's police force.
Yes we can argue about whether or not the US should have been so heavily involved in Kosovo and Iraq but most sane people recognize that because the US is so much more powerful than any other nation, it is the best hope for the world and world peace. The US can intervene in any conflict and destroy any despot it wishes. Yes, nation building and imperial wishes the US still cannot do but keep in mind that Saddam, the Taliban, Milosevic all were taken down pretty swiftly and far over-matched.
I believe Obama is adding troops to Afghanistan because in the long run, it will lead to a more stable Middle East and the continued destruction of organized terrorism.
"I believe Obama is adding troops to Afghanistan because in the long run, it will lead to a more stable Middle East and the continued destruction of organized terrorism."
Wow, the naivety of people never ceases to astound me. If you honestly 'believe' that US troops are in the Middle East to promote "stability", or combat "terrorism", then you really need to go and sit in the corner and leave the discussion and debate to others. Here's the real reasons the US are over there, and will continue to be over there for many years to come -
1. Military Keynesianism - the mistaken belief that public policies focused on frequent wars, huge expenditures on weapons and munitions, and large standing armies can indefinitely sustain a wealthy capitalist economy.
2. Promote US strategic interests in Middle East - securing and consolidate resources (OIL), maintain US influence in area to place pressure on other states to conform to US/western expectations, and all the debt that comes with that. Ironically, this is actually what you mean by "stability", you just don't realise it. The only stability the US has ever been concerned with is a stability that suits current strategies and alignments, and human life is cheap.
3. Sustain/promote the post-2001 quest for US HEGEMONY - this is what it's all about people. The "War On Terror" is empty rhetoric when the US has been directly responsible for the surge in anti-western and fundamentalist terror post-1945 with the outrageous policies followed during the Cold War, especially in the Middle East. We've been propping up corrupt regimes, puppet governments and unpopular dictators for decades. To now claim we are suddenly fighting Terror (with a capital T) and that is why we are over there is an outrageous falsehood, made critic-proof by the constant barrage of 9/11 into the public consciousness.
The US has been pursuing a position of global hegemony ever since the USSR collapsed and took the cold war framework along with it. Now we have simply substituted the abstract notion of a war against "communism" for an abstract notion of a war with "terrorism", Al-Qaeda and (of course) the almost-mythical Osama Bin Laden to justify this new brand of American Imperium.
I've commented on this numerous times on 411Mania and EVERY time my comment is moderated and not displayed... despite not containing any curse words or unnecessary offense whatsoever. Go figure.
Posted By: AJ (Guest) on December 13, 2009 at 07:35 PM
Further to my previous comment, a quick note about Afghanistan specifically and how we have operated over there. You watch the news, read the papers etc. about "the taliban" and think it was some hated, stone-age government right? We were right to overthrow them and install a glorious, freedom loving democratic model right
Don't be so empty headed. The Taliban were accepted by the Afghan people, despite their harsh laws, because they brought stability to a region blighted by the excessive violence and atrocities of multiple war lords and regional clans fighting for power. A quick look into some of these clans & warlords will reveal some pretty shocking disregard for human life. So what did the US do when we went in? Of course, we aligned with these warlords (remember the northern alliance? thought not.) to oust the Taliban.
Now we are propping up a government that, to retain it's power base, is aligned with some or all of these factions. As soon as the US leaves it will be back to in-fighting and brutality. And you know what? Nobody in a position of power, and certainly not Obama, gives a fuck. All we want to do now is to create a situation where we can withdraw and the Afghani government survives long enough for us to claim some kind of victory over something ("terror"!) before it collapses. Interestingly, this is exactly what Nixon did when he got out of Vietnam ("peace through honour"). Of course, he also extended the war to Cambodia and so on... and look what ended up happening there with the Khymer Rouge and Pol Pot coming to power only 2 or 3 years later. My point being that all these conflicts and operations have much deeper roots than this abstract, meaningless bullshit about freedom and terror and everything else people spew out their mouths all day.
Posted By: AJ (Guest) on December 13, 2009 at 07:59 PM
AJ, you're right and wrong there. Yes, for long term stability in the region the U.S. needs to get out and STAY out, and not just with troops. But in the short term, we have to stabilize Afghanistan before we can leave. I imagine that is Obama's plan. Not to blame everything on Bush, but he kind of inherited a war-torn Afghanistan that had been ignored for a long time to focus on the real priority at the time, Iraq (which should never have been a priority at all, I know, but try telling the Bush administration that).
A troop surge in Afghanistan at this point is the only way to stabilize the country. If Obama's plan is to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan in the next year or two, and then leave well enough alone in the Middle East for the rest of time, then he will be doing the right thing for the people there AND the people here. However, if he decides to pursue the same course of action that every president since Truman has and prop up dictatorships and send troops and supplies to our buddies so they can kill our enemies, then we will never fix any of these problems.
And unilateralism and American hegemony have been around for five decades now, but they won't be around much longer. Within 20 or 30 years China and America (and maybe even India and a united Europe if they can ever get along) will be veritable equals on the world stage, and we can either learn to work with them or work against them. If we choose the latter, then we all get to look forward another Cold War.
I think we all know how we Americans will respond. Everyone's so stuck on being #1 that I doubt we will be able to play well with others for a long, long time, and we must always control everything to our advantage even though we only make up 5% of the world's population. Yay second Cold War.
Posted By: General Sandoval (Guest) on December 13, 2009 at 08:05 PM
AJ: you say that the Taliban had brought "stability" to Afghanistan. Then you mention The Northern Alliance -- which I do remember. Even had not the U.S. got involved it was even money that the N.A. would have taken over within a year or two. That's not exactly stability.
And even if it was stability, the impact on people's lives, particularly women, shows that there are worse things in the world than instability.
General Sandoval: I expect that India is going to be the key to the 21st century: It will have a larger population than China, by mid-century, despite the poverty it has a decent amount of high-tech capability -- and it's getting a lot of help from Israel, in that corner, particularly with regard to military technology. And it's a reasonably well-working democracy.
While the U.S. would do well to establish closer ties with India, there is one huge risk in that. India and China are rivals and, with or without American involvement, there could be some nasty exchanges going between those two countries.
Posted By: CDL (Guest) on December 13, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Yes General Sandoval I agree with a lot of what you have said. I do accept that Obama has come into a difficult situation, with the Bush Administration running wild with unipolar policies (by the way, did you know that as early as Jan 2001 Bush & pals were planning a "demonstration case of US power" in Iraq? Kind of puts 9/11 in a new perspective doesn't it.)
It is also important to note that Obama is only one man, he still has his administration, the bureaucracy, congress, military et cetera to deal with... Which I guess perhaps is my point, regardless of who is currently the face of power and government US strategy never drastically changes. I agree that a new Cold War is definitely on the horizon... nice to see someone on this site with a good grasp of US foreign policy, props...
Posted By: AJ (Guest) on December 13, 2009 at 10:43 PM
... nice to see someone on this site with a good grasp of US foreign policy, props...
Posted By: AJ (Guest) on December 13, 2009 at 10:43 PM
you would expect more, wouldnt you AJ but.....
"I've commented on this numerous times on 411Mania and EVERY time my comment is moderated and not displayed... despite not containing any curse words or unnecessary offense whatsoever. Go figure."
This happens to me also. I guess it really depends on the discretion of any particular moderator. I dont know where the line is but there certainly is one.
Posted By: silenced #???? (Guest) on December 13, 2009 at 11:17 PM
My point being that all these conflicts and operations have much deeper roots than this abstract, meaningless bullshit about freedom and terror and everything else people spew out their mouths all day.
Posted By: AJ (Guest) on December 13, 2009 at 07:59 PM
Shhh! You're going to ruin the end of the movie!
Posted By: Guest#0962 (Guest) on December 14, 2009 at 02:41 AM
Amazing how something can sound so sinister by the phrasing. Of course, the U.S. had plans for a "'demonstration case of US power' in Iraq." We'd been in a war with them a decade before and the Clinton administration hadn't exactly been out on picnic lunches with Saddam and his sons.
Any administration would be making plans with regard to Iraq. What would have been carried out, before 9/11 changed so much is another question.
Posted By: CDL (Guest) on December 14, 2009 at 11:05 AM
There are some very articulate comments here which I happen to largely agree with. For the sake of lively debate I hope more latitude is shown about what gets posted.
"Clearly, he spent a lot of time to make this decision and at this point, I have to assume that it is the best decision he could make given his options."
I don't believe in simply giving the benefit of the doubt when our troops are put in danger. General Sandoval makes a case for staying until the region is stabilized. I make the case for leaving now, i.e. when we know we can only apply a band-aid before it all falls apart, it's just not worth it. The rest of the world is smarter than we give them credit for, and whether it's sooner or later the inevitable chaos that follows our exit will be blamed squarely on us. You can't use semantics as if you're in a courtroom to win approval on the world stage. The one stance I can't condone is blindly trusting who you voted for.
I said countless times last year that the country needed a CFO in the White House, not a military man. By ramping up our military involvement, Obama seems to be playing up his biggest weakness. Intelligence does not equate to being a military strategist, just as my skills with math don't mean I would make a good mechanic. If Obama is smart, and I think he is, he's listening to those who have proven their ability in the military arena. The problem is those people have a will to win that isn't guided by diplomacy or financial factors. Generals gauge the possibility of victory, while the Commander-in-Chief has to weigh the costs. I think the President has miscalculated the costs of this escalation badly, whether or not he pays for it in 2012.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Guest) on December 14, 2009 at 11:19 AM
AJ, where exactly is this oil in Afghanistan you keep talking about? There is no oil there, and all the pipelines run north of Afghanistan in the former Soviet states, so there goes that portion of your arguement in regards to Afghanistan.
"Her ego isn't so large that she believes her opinion matters"
you really need to take this statement to heart. IF you think things in this country are so bad, instead of whining about it, either do something to change it, or leave.
Posted By: dan (Guest) on December 14, 2009 at 01:19 PM
IF you think things in this country are so bad, instead of whining about it, either do something to change it, or leave.
Posted By: dan (Guest) on December 14, 2009 at 01:19 PM
Yeah! No more dissent! Its unAmerican!
Posted By: Guest#5555 (Guest) on December 14, 2009 at 03:28 PM
"I believe Obama is adding troops to Afghanistan because in the long run, it will lead to a more stable Middle East and the continued destruction of organized terrorism."
Wow, the naivety of people never ceases to astound me. If you honestly 'believe' that US troops are in the Middle East to promote "stability", or combat "terrorism", then you really need to go and sit in the corner and leave the discussion and debate to others. Here's the real reasons the US are over there, and will continue to be over there for many years to come -
1. Military Keynesianism - the mistaken belief that public policies focused on frequent wars, huge expenditures on weapons and munitions, and large standing armies can indefinitely sustain a wealthy capitalist economy.
2. Promote US strategic interests in Middle East - securing and consolidate resources (OIL), maintain US influence in area to place pressure on other states to conform to US/western expectations, and all the debt that comes with that. Ironically, this is actually what you mean by "stability", you just don't realise it. The only stability the US has ever been concerned with is a stability that suits current strategies and alignments, and human life is cheap.
3. Sustain/promote the post-2001 quest for US HEGEMONY - this is what it's all about people. The "War On Terror" is empty rhetoric when the US has been directly responsible for the surge in anti-western and fundamentalist terror post-1945 with the outrageous policies followed during the Cold War, especially in the Middle East. We've been propping up corrupt regimes, puppet governments and unpopular dictators for decades. To now claim we are suddenly fighting Terror (with a capital T) and that is why we are over there is an outrageous falsehood, made critic-proof by the constant barrage of 9/11 into the public consciousness.
The US has been pursuing a position of global hegemony ever since the USSR collapsed and took the cold war framework along with it. Now we have simply substituted the abstract notion of a war against "communism" for an abstract notion of a war with "terrorism", Al-Qaeda and (of course) the almost-mythical Osama Bin Laden to justify this new brand of American Imperium.
I've commented on this numerous times on 411Mania and EVERY time my comment is moderated and not displayed... despite not containing any curse words or unnecessary offense whatsoever. Go figure.
Posted By: AJ (Guest) on December 13, 2009 at 07:35 PM
For all your bluster about how awful the current troop surge is. what's your solution?
Immediately pull out? With a resurgent Taliban and national/provincial/local forces. for the most part, not ready to defend themselves?
If that were to happen, you'd be back on your soapbox, crying about the human rights mess.
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on December 14, 2009 at 09:16 PM
I don't know about you, but I don't know how you sleep at night, knowing that you could give two shits about the actual situation on the ground if Afghanistan, as long as your anti-war insanity is satiated.
If the President of the United States, after seeing all the intelligence reports, conferring with his generals, taking stock of all opinion across the spectrum, while doing so over a period of months, and the conclusion that he came up with was a plan which, in essence, would deploy 30,000 US troops, along with possibly 10,000 NATO troops, into the southern Afghani region, focusing on Helmand and Kandahar provinces, the Taliban's stronghold, and give our armed forces 18 months, to clear out the Taliban and provide the opportunity for an Afghani security force to take hold, with an end-date for reassessment, I'd give the plan a chance.
The goal, in my opinion, is quite clear; pair US, NATO, and Afghan forces together, in an effort to 'break' the influence of the Taliban, in the region of the country where they are most powerful. Kill them off, bribe them; it doesn't matter. The plan, in my opinion, is to eliminate the influence of the Taliban in their home base.
If the goal of the mission is successful, Afghani forces will then have the opportunity to see if they can provide security and civilian services to its' people.
The plan also calls for an assessment in mid-July 2011, because this is an arbitrary date that the President, his generals, and his advisers believe they will be able to determine if this new strategy is working, as well as how well or not well it is working.
If the strategy is working and the Afghan security forces are quickly stepping in, the timetable for a US drawdown will be a bit quicker.
If the strategy is working, but the Afghans are slow to step in with their own forces, the US withdrawal process still goes forth, but at a slower pace.
If the strategy isn't working, the US assess the situation of why the strategy isn't working, and the plan changes, probably leading to a drastic de-escalation of the US fighting forces in Afghanistan, and a re-commitment to the US/NATO focusing solely on training Afghan forces and drone attacks against Al Quaeda and Taliban targets friendly to Al Quaeda.
President Barack Obama sat down and made an adult decision, came out with a 'grown up' plan, with logical benchmarks for what he wants done and the situations for his end game.
Try growing up
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on December 14, 2009 at 09:41 PM
Yes General Sandoval I agree with a lot of what you have said. I do accept that Obama has come into a difficult situation, with the Bush Administration running wild with unipolar policies (by the way, did you know that as early as Jan 2001 Bush & pals were planning a "demonstration case of US power" in Iraq? Kind of puts 9/11 in a new perspective doesn't it.)
It is also important to note that Obama is only one man, he still has his administration, the bureaucracy, congress, military et cetera to deal with... Which I guess perhaps is my point, regardless of who is currently the face of power and government US strategy never drastically changes. I agree that a new Cold War is definitely on the horizon... nice to see someone on this site with a good grasp of US foreign policy, props...
Posted By: AJ (Guest) on December 13, 2009 at 10:43 PM
And now come the conspiracy theories.
You, in your own life, can slander and libel whomever you want; yet, to come out and try to frame things as if it was common knowledge Bush was planning to invade other specific countries, even before 9/11, without providing a single shred of credible evidence or a credible source that backs anything that you're trying to argue, is sad.
shame on you
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on December 14, 2009 at 09:49 PM
What's sad, Scipio2009, is you passing judgement on things you aren't even remotely informed about. Dismissing as "conspiracy theory" what is widely known in academic and official circles is ridiculous. Take a look at "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century" - from the infamous PNAC think-tank that drew up early Bush administration foreign policy.
This document (drawn up in September 2000 by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Scooter Libby and others) supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.
This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.
The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that says the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.
Most notably, it pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.
These are all direct quotes. Many of these documents were drawn up and became the basis for subsequent National Security Directives. So yes, it is a reasonable conclusion to (in your words) "frame things as if it was common knowledge Bush was planning to invade other specific countries, even before 9/11". The irony of an ignorant, rhetoric swallower like you telling me to "grow up" is priceless.
Posted By: AJ (Guest) on December 14, 2009 at 11:39 PM
It's great to see Scipio2009 get put in his place. Good work AJ - that sanctimonious, pompous, arrogant little chump has been spouting his worthless opinions for too long now.
Posted By: Captain Cantankerous (Guest) on December 15, 2009 at 11:07 AM
"The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that says the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'."
Posted By: AJ
I firmly believe this mentality is why the European Union was formed, and is why it will continue to grow. 27 nations agreed on a set of laws and established a common currency. The United States, on the other hand, won't even adopt the metric system. Our insistence on the use of war and isolationism will result in losing all the gains we made in the 20th century if nothing changes. Since China will enjoy tremendous leverage over us for the foreseeable future, the EU will gain that much more importance in maintaining global stability.
Europe is building a foundation for future prosperity while we fight for control over a region whose only valuable resource will be either exhausted or rendered completely obsolete well before the end of the century. The future is in a world where instigating war will be so economically costly (in international sanctions as well as the price tag) that it will be off the table. We are moving further in the wrong direction.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on December 15, 2009 at 12:18 PM
The future is in a world where instigating war will be so economically costly (in international sanctions as well as the price tag) that it will be off the table. We are moving further in the wrong direction.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on December 15, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Technological advances may very well make war cheaper to wage, not more expensive.
Posted By: Guest#0306 (Guest) on December 15, 2009 at 03:03 PM
The future is in a world where instigating war will be so economically costly (in international sanctions as well as the price tag) that it will be off the table. We are moving further in the wrong direction.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on December 15, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Technological advances may very well make war cheaper to wage, not more expensive.
Posted By: Guest#0306
No matter how cheap guns or bombs can be made, transporting a constant stream of supplies to another country, often with geography not conducive to such tasks, will always be very costly. Tactical strikes could certainly become cheap, but not ground invasions. And that's without considering the markup that comes with no-bid contracts, or the reality that political deals keep military products in use for years after they are obsolete.
On the sanction end of things, the more nations that group together under a unified economy, the more devastating it would be to get shunned by them. The EU is about 30% of world GDP and climbing as they add members. Just as the U.S. will be in a position where we don't dare offend China, the EU will hold tremendous sway over rogue states in the years to come, all without dropping a single bomb.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on December 15, 2009 at 05:16 PM
The future is in a world where instigating war will be so economically costly (in international sanctions as well as the price tag) that it will be off the table. We are moving further in the wrong direction.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on December 15, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Technological advances may very well make war cheaper to wage, not more expensive.
Posted By: Guest#0306
No matter how cheap guns or bombs can be made, transporting a constant stream of supplies to another country, often with geography not conducive to such tasks, will always be very costly. Tactical strikes could certainly become cheap, but not ground invasions. And that's without considering the markup that comes with no-bid contracts, or the reality that political deals keep military products in use for years after they are obsolete.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on December 15, 2009 at 05:16 PM
I should have been more specific. I was thinking from the perspective of terrorists involved in an symmetrical war.
Future (or current) technology may make it cheaper and easier for someone to say, create an airborne strain of ebola, or a dozen suitcase nukes.
Utilizing such weapons would be cheap. The methods to prevent such an attack are what we are attempting currently with more troops.. I assume.
Posted By: Guest#8540 (Guest) on December 15, 2009 at 06:58 PM
"Fox News Contributor Susan Estrich wrote an excellent opinion piece about Obama's Afghanistan plan."
Miss Estrich is a liberal, yes? I thought fox was the root of all evil becuase its conservative. What would they be doing with a left winger on the show?
Wait....there is alot of libs on the network
Ellis Heinican, Chris Wallace, Geraldo Rivera, Alan Colmes, Bernie Sanders, John Edwards, Mark Mellman, Terry McAuliffe, Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sen. Dennis Kucinich, Rep. Charles Rangle, Minister Hashim Nzinga, Geraldine Ferraro, Bob Beckel, Lanny Davis, Joe Lieberman, Tammy Bruce, Pat Caddell, Neal Gabler, Jane Hall, Jeff Cohen, Juan WIlliams, Mara Liason, Morton Kondracke
Maybe the lamestream media could learn a thing or two about presenting both sides of the political spectrum.
Posted By: John (Guest) on December 15, 2009 at 10:56 PM
You people sure are long winded.
Posted By: y2josh (Guest) on December 15, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Maybe the lamestream media could learn a thing or two about presenting both sides of the political spectrum.
Posted By: John (Guest) on December 15, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Hoah! I get it! Is 'lamestream' because no one watches FOX News.. or listens to conservative talk radio! Is very funny! Hoah!
Posted By: Fwad (Guest) on December 16, 2009 at 12:55 AM
General Sandoval is right about the next cold war, only that it has already started and America (and to an extent Europe) are loosing.
The rest of this century is going to be about resources, and in particular how developed countries can secure enough resources from less developed countries to maintain a managable standard of living for their populations(since if they don't their government and political/economic system will loose legitimacy and eventually collapse). America is probably in a far worse position than Europe on this front due its higher energy and food consumption and generally hositile views about environmentalism.
While the US and NATO are concentrating on Afghanistan (a country with no useful resources), the Chinese are slowly colonising Africa in the guise of offering trade deals, soft loans and advisors. By the time the west wakes up to this, we will have lost control of a huge chunk of the remaining resources the world has.
Meanwhile the other parts of the world with large untapped resources (Russia and parts of Latin America) are also being neglected as Obama does nothing to repair the damage Bush did during his term in office.
With Russia, the end game will probably be some sort of Nationalist Government which has a relationship with some or all of the EU whereby Europe buys all the oil and gas it needs in return for turning a blind eye to what's going on domestically.
Its hard to call Latin America, but the signs are that capitalist/liberal democracy may already be on the retreat, for example as parts of Mexico turn into a narco-state.
NATO is fighting the wrong war and we will all be living to retreat this for a very long time.
Posted By: phils (Guest) on December 16, 2009 at 12:59 PM
The rest of this century is going to be about resources, and in particular how developed countries can secure enough resources from less developed countries to maintain a managable standard of living for their populations(since if they don't their government and political/economic system will loose legitimacy and eventually collapse.
Posted By: phils (Guest) on December 16, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Agreed. Which is why we should be pumping billions and billions of dollars into alternative energy research.
Regardless, I highly suspect that the standard of living which the "average" American has enjoyed over the past 50 years is in its dying days. Regardless of which political party is in control.
Posted By: Guest#8556 (Guest) on December 16, 2009 at 08:40 PM
STAY CURRENT