The official blog of the Libertarian Party
May 09, 2005
Afghanistan: It's Not Over Yet
Despite pre-election claims by George W. Bush that the "Taliban is no longer in existence" this non-existent group of radicals managed to put together a strong fight against U.S. Marines in Afghanistan which left two Americans dead.
According to an Associated Press report, the battle lasted five hours and involved several air strikes by U.S. warplanes. The battle represented "the latest sign of a revived Taliban-led insurgency."
While Bush pre-maturely claimed victory in Iraq on May 1st 2003, he managed to repeat the same mistake in regards to the Taliban and the ongoing fighting in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan seems to be past history to the republican administration. Despite growing problems in the area, increased violence and the free status of Osama bin Laden who may still be in the area, only 8,500 troops remain deployed in Afghanistan. Troop strength was greatly decreased to support the ongoing occupation of Iraq.
The authority of current Afghan President Hamid Karzai is representative of half-baked strategy employed over the region by the Bush administration. Karzai is known as the "Mayor of Kabul" as his power is said to be limited to the capital city.
Posted by Shane Cory at May 9, 2005 12:40 PM
Reader Comments:
It seems that no news isn't always good news. I have heard lots and lots and lots about the ongoing violence in Iraq, but almost nothing about Afganistan. I had assumed that meant that everything was going along ok there, because our media seems to think that only bad news is worth reporting. Another busted myth.
Only 8,500 of our troops in Afghanistan? I'm shocked the number is that low. This news leads me to question why we've been and continue to be more concerned with Iraq. Any ideas?
Wasn't sure whereelse to post this. But the national ID is voted on tomorrow. Write your Senators and tell them how you feel.
http://www.unrealid.com
I think this is the place to post that Mike. What other way do we have of getting a message out to the entire LP? None.
This blog should be on fire. We should have over 750 comments on every post and have new posts coming in every couple of hours. Every single person in the country who has any interest in the Libertarian Party should be making a comment on here every single day.
This blog should be on the main page at lp.org and all news stories should be put on the blog and allow reader comments. The Texas cheerleader news story should be on this blog with reader comments for example.
We should have daily status reports from every leader of the LP on the blog here every day.
Where is Joe Seehusen and Michael Dixon? We need regular status reports from the leaders of the party.
See additional commentary here...
http://www.livejournal.com/users/rachelmills/
This is a cool page here....
http://www.lp.org/organization/states.shtml
Looks like it was stolen from WTP here...
https://givemeliberty.org/user/congress/map.aspx
or maybe the other way around.
Powerful concept either way. Click on a state and go to more informaiton on that state. Very powerful graphic.
I would like to see when you click on the state you are directed to that state's official LP blog. The blog could easily contain all of the currently existing data in its left and right hand columns, plus have news coming in at the top of the middle column and reader comments at the bottom of every news post.
This would be a very powerful setup in my opinion.
Keep up the good work LP and thanks for blogging.
It goes to show that an agressive foreign policy just doesn't work. If we concentrated our efforts just in Afghanistan we'd be in better shape.
We(the Libertarian Party) can always advertise on television and use current affairs to our advantage.
Mike, I think this is the place to discuss the national id card, if we wait it may be to late. I would like to thank the LP for updating the site and adding a blog, but I would like to see a press release on the national id card. I also think it would be nice to add donations to run tv ads on issues such as this. I am not trying to be critical only helpfull.
Doug, care to actually comment on the post? Otherwise yours really don't belong here...if you want that sort of thing to happen, take it up with the administration.
"...Osama bin Laden who may still be in the area..."
The last thing we need is speculation and not facts. Osama bin Laden could be anywhere; if the government can't find him, I assume Mr. Cory can't either, unless he has some intelligence that the U.S. does not. This reminds me of the current administrations use of fear to ram policy through Congress.
I believe it is hard to understand what is happening in Afghanastan because there are not very many troops there and there appears to be few reporters. I am glad the country was libertated from the Taliban, and wish that Mr. Bush would have left our troops there to fight instead of going to Iraq.
Doug Kenline, I guess it is your intention to attempt to hijack each and every thread in order to repeat the same rant over and over. Never learned to play well with others? Endless repetition of the same point does nothing but put folks to sleep.
Regarding Afghanistan, it is amazing to me the arrogance of the imperialists who think that we can drop a few thousand troops into a tribal culture and change it over night into a Western style republic.
Of course, Afghanistan is a tribal melange with competing warlords as well as the Taliban struggling for power. Why shouldn't it be? It has been for centuries.
The real tragedy in all this is that the US effectively gave up fighting Al Queda to go launch an unjustifed invasion of Iraq. Al Queda attacked us. Iraq never did.
Rick, I agree that people want to create a democracy everywhere (I know we have a republic and have even argued with history teachers and students) and when it fails and people hate us they ask, Why? I appologize for not commenting on the post the first time, but I had never commented before and was responding to a previous post.
Regarding jnice's question, "This news leads me to question why we've been and continue to be more concerned with Iraq. Any ideas?"
I think the answer is so obvious that we tend to forget it. Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted to enhance the power and prestige of his administration by saving the Iraqi people from Saddam. It was a key part of his administration's "legacy." Afghanistan was already "won," so there was no more political benefit to emphasizing ongoing activities there.
All of this strongly suggests that Bush's top priorities are not about protecting America from attackers (Al Qaeda) but rather about building Republican Party power and influence in government.
Mary, thanks for the links to the national id card. Why are we more concerned with Iraq? That is a great question because we could have went to Sudan, Iran, or focus on North Korea, two of the three appear to be trying to obtain nuclear weapons, or just stayed in Afghanastan. We went after Saddam because we thought he might be trying to get weapons and when a country does we do little if nothing. I think this would have been a great question to ask George Bush, and John Kerry in the debates, but of course there questions were reviewed by them anyway.
Jd, I think you assume the administration was being completely forthright with us when they told us they believed Iraq was developing WMD. There was a lot more evidence pointing in the opposite direction. Richard Clark testified that invading Iraq was being discussed long before Sept. 11th. Cheney and Rumsfeld had been wanting to invade Iraq before our "War on Terror" ever began. They tried pressuring the Clinton administration into doing it. Sept. 11 just gave them a convenient excuse to do it. And they don't plan on leaving any time in the near future. Why do you think this administration doesn't even want to discuss an exit plan? There isn't one. There is no doubt in my mind we will be in Iraq for at least a decade - probably much longer.
As to why do Americans seem to care more about Iraq than what is going on in their own country? That's easy, because it's more exciting. Death and destruction will always win out against boring legislation. It's just not exciting reading provisions of the Patriot Act or discussing the pros and cons of a national ID card. You can't show off your patriotism with a bumber sticker saying "Support the Patriot Act". That just doesn't have the same affect. But there's no doubt you're a good American if you have a bumber sticker say "Support Our Troops". As a matter of fact, real Americans should have at least two or more of those stickers on all their vehicles. American's are fascinated by war. It's like watching a good action movie. Turn on the six o'clock news and watch a little shock and awe after dinner. Fox can tell you about all the good things America stands for and why we have to "End tyrrany in the world" and man, I don't know about you, but it sure makes me proud to be an American. Never mind the death and destruction that war is really all about. Don't show any American GI's that have had their legs blown off or have had half their face ripped off by an IED. It's all sanitized for public consumption. Parade our heros during the day (remember Jessica Lynch) and bring the dead back in the middle of the night.
American's just don't pay attention to what the politicians do at home. And the politicians know it. Most Americans can't even tell you who their State Senators are, let alone how they vote on various issues. The Founding Fathers would be appalled! Freedom and Liberty are merely catch phrases in this country any more. Until things get a lot worse, I don't see them getting any better.
Here's a question that perhaps someone more schooled in libertarian philosophy and policy can answer:
Does the fact that what Mr. Bush did in invading a soverign nation (Iraq and i guess Afghanistan too) without a mandate from the UN security council matter? If we are allowed to take our national security in own hands as we should, how much participaiton in the international community and its rules is required of us?
But yeah, Im a US armed service member, and I joined wanting to go to Afghanistan. Instead, I narrowly avoided going to Iraq. Its BS that in this day and age where flexibility of our armed forces is absolutely critical, we are stuck in Iraq with no end in sight. We used to have Marine expeditionary units constantly patroling the Mediteranian and the Pacific oceans, but now when they are done with their training they go straght to Iraq. Thats an absolute waste of resources.
Brad,
If the U.S. were actually defending itself (I think that argument can be made in the case of Afghanistan) then we don't need anyone's permission to defend ourselves. It's the same right you have to defend your very own life from unprovoked violent attacks. Genuine self-defense needs no permission.
Initiating preemptive force against another country with no viable reason is never acceptable no matter how many other countries give you their blessing... current case in point: Iraq.
Brad, I thank you for putting your life on the line for our country. I'm sorry, however, that our 'leaders' jeopardize and misuse your resources by carrying out ill-convieved empire building, which subsequently just puts us all at greater risk.
(Note: great way to recruit enemies. Go into THEIR home and tell them how to live)
Mark, I don't think the Bush administration was at all honest, I think they wanted a war from the day Bush was elected, but I was refering to congress who may or may not have believed Iraq was trying to obtain weapons. I haven't looked into much because my view is the war is unconstitutional because congress did not declare it. I also don't believe there ever was an exit strategy they thought the people will welcome us and did little if nothing to prepare for what actually happened.
Jd, I'd have to agree with you on the war being unconstitutional. But nowadays, it doesn't seem that we need an official declaration of war. After all, we're only exercising "regime change". You've got to love that phrase. It sounds like something you'd associate with an election. Maybe if Iraq's really lucky they'll get their own "Patriot Act" someday. It's all too much to believe sometimes! So this is what democracy is all about? Thank god we have a republic!
Mark, We have not had a declared war since I believe WW2. I have argued with history teachers, and many young people about America being a republic. They always say something about the U.S. being a democracy and then I pull out the constitution or make them read the pledge and stop when they say republic. The bad thing is, the next week they will call it a democracy again and when I ask them why? The history teacher, or the news said we were so it must be true.
Afghanistan:
1) Lots of mountains and desert, few people
2) They grow alot of poppies (heroin, etc.)
3) Migrant (tribal) population (weather, food, seasons)
Iraq:
1) Big, big exporter of fossil fuels (oil)
2) They import food
3) A stable (non-migrating) population
If you ran an Empire, would you want Afganistan or Iraq? (actually we don't want to own Iraq, just run their economy while we pump the oil {and call it 'democracy building'})
Re: War in Afganistan
I think time is on the side of the poppies (heroin, etc.), like is was when the USSR tried to 'occupy' the country. What the USSR 'won' was a bunch of addicts!
| 
It seems that no news isn't always good news. I have heard lots and lots and lots about the ongoing violence in Iraq, but almost nothing about Afganistan. I had assumed that meant that everything was going along ok there, because our media seems to think that only bad news is worth reporting. Another busted myth.
Posted by: Albert at May 9, 2005 01:20 PM