The bottom line

  • Follow Editorials

Regardless of what President Obama decides to do in Afghanistan, it's a good bet much of the world won't appreciate it -- or acknowledge the good that America does in the world. And they sure won't join us in the heavy lifting.

Notwithstanding, this is not America's war. This is a struggle to civilize the hornet's nest that time forgot. Terrorists based in Afghanistan attacked us in 2001 -- but their ilk are at war with civilization all over the globe, from India and Pakistan and Iraq and Afghanistan to Indonesia, Africa and elsewhere.

And while a "coalition of the willing" occasionally stands with us, it's mostly America that is shedding its blood to fight the world's battles for it.

Afghanistan, historically a caustic cauldron of chaos, is no different.

So be it. We'll go it largely alone. Because we have to.

Comments (42) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 10/08/09 - 06:00 am
0
0
What a pathetic excuse for an

What a pathetic excuse for an editorial! Poor old beset upon Uncle Sam! Nobody likes us. The Augusta Chronicle editorial staff (ACES) offers no explanation why this might be so. In an editorial on Oct 6 titled "Does left want a weakened America?" ACES claimed that liberals are ashamed of America's superpower status & want it weakened. The truth is United States is weakened & the world marching to its own terms because of a misuse of that power. What IS United States fighting for in Afghanistan? The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan 8 years ago was justified because we were in pursuit of those who planned & carried out the 9/11 & other terrorist attacks. Al Qaeda camps were destroyed although Sheriff George Wyatt Earp Bush never brought Osama bin Laden to justice as he swore he would. United States had the right to overthrow the Taliban gov't while in hot pursuit of the 9/11 perpetrators. United States maintains the right to pursue & bring to justice those DIRECTLY responsible for 9/11. United States does not have the right or the need to wage war in Afghanistan for 8 years. An article in The London Times yesterday says American troops are losing heart because the US mission is unclear.

omnomnom
3964
Points
omnomnom 10/08/09 - 06:42 am
0
0
bulls on parade

bulls on parade

WhippingPost
1
Points
WhippingPost 10/08/09 - 06:59 am
0
0
The U.S. mission became

The U.S. mission became unclear on Nov 4, 2008. It has been unclear on all subjects, domestic and foreign, every day since. One of the plethora of unrealistic planks in the Obama platform was an instant win in the "true" war on terrorism. OBL would be captured and victory would be declared as the U.S. moved in to an era of peace and love with the rest of the world. Well, reality has once again smacked Obama dead in the face and once again he's handled it by replying, "present". No action, no decision, just treading water while explaining how he's in the process of straightening out the mess he inherited from Bush. His inaction, by the way, is also Bush's fault. While it's taking Obama an inordinate amount of time to "grow into this job", a lot of decisions are going unmade. What to do in Afghanistan (since his campaign fantasy was too silly) is just one of them. In the meantime, soldiers die while Obama lies.

concernednative
28
Points
concernednative 10/08/09 - 07:07 am
0
0
WhippingPost, what is the

WhippingPost, what is the mission in Afghanistan in your opinion?

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 10/08/09 - 07:25 am
0
0
Actually the U.S. military

Actually the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan became unclear on March 20, 2003 when President George W. Bush took his sights off OBL, set his sights on Saddam Hussein & ordered the US invasion of Iraq w/o completing the mission in Afghanistan. In 2002 SecDef Rumsfeld touted the "amazing success" of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. No Americans opposed the initial U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in Oct 2001. The Taliban were overthrown in Nov 2001. In Dec 2001 OBL was allowed to escape when he was trapped in the Tora Bora mountains of Afghanistan. Instead of going in after OBL themselves the U.S. military outsourced that job to locals. Guess what? OBL got away & lived to fight another day. At one point President George W. Bush stated that he was no longer much concerned about the fate of OBL because Al Qaeda had been significantly degraded. United States' mission became unclear in Afghanistan when the lives of ordinary Afghans failed to improve under U.S.-backed President Hamid Karzai. Make no mistake, United States is the power behind the "sovereign" (in name only) states of Afghanistan & Iraq. The mission was doomed when locals perceived Americans as occupiers not liberators.

WhippingPost
1
Points
WhippingPost 10/08/09 - 07:32 am
0
0
Cain, politics in general

Cain, politics in general really confuses you, doesn't it? Extrapolation or intelligent thought progression are just concepts with big words to you. However, when it comes to parroting the goofy agenda oriented "reporting" of CNN / NPR, you excel. You're not alone, though. Confusion continues to reign in the current administration. The fact that you claim to understand it, and agree, should be proof enough.

WhippingPost
1
Points
WhippingPost 10/08/09 - 07:36 am
0
0
WhippingPost, what is the

WhippingPost, what is the mission in Afghanistan in your opinion?
Posted by concernednative on Thu Oct 8, 2009 7:07 AM (This question says so much about the poster. ) concernednative, the mission in Afghanistan is what the current commander in chief says it is. There is no opinion involved. Of course, right now, the CIC hasn't decided WHAT the mission is. I guess that makes your post a trick question.

concernednative
28
Points
concernednative 10/08/09 - 07:37 am
0
0
WhippingPost, what should be

WhippingPost, what should be the mission in your opinion? You have bad stuff to say about Obama but JohnRandolph's 7:25am post is a pretty good timeline and explanation of how we got were we are.

WhippingPost
1
Points
WhippingPost 10/08/09 - 07:39 am
0
0
Cain's 7:25 post is a

Cain's 7:25 post is a parroted perspective that "picks and chooses" pertinent facts pertaining to the war on terror.

terry67
0
Points
terry67 10/08/09 - 07:44 am
0
0
How about we get out of Iraq,

How about we get out of Iraq, get out of Afghanistan, GET OUT OF THE UN, come home, defend our borders, clean up our mess we have here, Crime, Illegals, drug traffic...... Just let the rest of the world simmer for a few. Just sit back and wait. Let them bomb each other into oblivion.

concernednative
28
Points
concernednative 10/08/09 - 07:49 am
0
0
Whippingpost, what is your

Whippingpost, what is your solution.

teharper428
2
Points
teharper428 10/08/09 - 07:57 am
0
0
Whip- you're pissing and

Whip- you're pissing and moaning about bin laden not captured in the 10 months of President Obama's administration when in the bush administration in their 8 years he wasn't captured??? We all know no matter what President Obama does you'll disagree with it. If he had instantly made a decision, you would be saying he didn't weigh all the options.
And what in Cain's statement of 7:25 did he get wrong about Afghanistan? Seemed to be a concise timeline of the events.

WhippingPost
1
Points
WhippingPost 10/08/09 - 07:58 am
0
0
Dang, concernednative, my

Dang, concernednative, my solution is to allow the CIC to do his job. All of the rhetoric Cain is using seems to say the current CIC is doing what Bush did because he's unwilling to make a decision. It's time for Obama to decide something other than "present". Will he support his generals or will he support his base that is calling for withdrawal? Does he know the consequences of each move? Are they different than when he was campaigning? What seems to be the hold up? My solution is as relevant as yours. It's the man in the oval office that needs to become the decider...eventually.

WhippingPost
1
Points
WhippingPost 10/08/09 - 07:59 am
0
0
I admit it's a concise

I admit it's a concise perspective of partial information, teharper, and Cain deserves a really big cracker.

bettyboop
7
Points
bettyboop 10/08/09 - 08:03 am
0
0
Come now folks...remember

Come now folks...remember barry said this is the "good war".......

xanadu
0
Points
xanadu 10/08/09 - 08:19 am
0
0
well gee, when the CIC only

well gee, when the CIC only talks to his general once in a big, fat blue moon (when he isn't busy playing games with jay leno or running to new york city to party or running across the ocean to beg for the olympics), how can he possibly come up with any type of game plan? oh, wait, kid o is our great redeemer, and some great, big epiphany is going to occur to him while roasting wieners with regis and kelly on their morning show. we just have to be patient and wait for the message to reach him, from whatever place it is he hears voices (nasty pelosi speaks to him in dreams, maybe?) you know, all the ancient peoples knew enough that one cannot rush the shaman, the shaman only speaks when the shaman has been given the sign.

justus4
99
Points
justus4 10/08/09 - 08:41 am
0
0
"because we have to" is
Unpublished

"because we have to" is completely wrong. We don't have to! We can leave. That will take courage and few citizens have any, including the politicians. The entire article is repeating the same ole tired line of BS..."We were attacked on 911 and..." BS! millions of slaves were borned & died in slavery while the country was being built with their free labor, but each time the "founding" is mentioned the institution of slavery should be prefaced based on those lives lost. Because 911 happened, everything is not justified by it, just like slaves built the country but do U hear that being justification for Reparations? No. Get out of Afghanistan now because next year will be too late.

WhippingPost
1
Points
WhippingPost 10/08/09 - 08:54 am
0
0
another wonderful post

another wonderful post justus. Some of the words were almost relevant to the topic of discussion.

Niko Mahs
83
Points
Niko Mahs 10/08/09 - 09:37 am
0
0
We are gonna get Osama Dead

We are gonna get Osama Dead or Alive. You betcha!

concernednative
28
Points
concernednative 10/08/09 - 09:46 am
0
0
Whippingpost, when you don't

Whippingpost, when you don't have a clue you fall back on let the CIC do his job. You bash him everyday but when your party has felled miserably and have no clue you finally want to let the prez be the prez. I don't believe my lying eyes when I read your post.

Riverman1
81296
Points
Riverman1 10/08/09 - 09:51 am
0
0
Hey Cain, it makes me smile

Hey Cain, it makes me smile to know some of the tax money YOU pay goes to support the war in Afghanistan. Heh.

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 10/08/09 - 10:25 am
0
0
I don't think that Republican

I don't think that Republican war supporters give a damn about what is in the best interest of the Afghan people. They are concerned with United States winning a military victory no matter the costs. Justus4 is absolutely correct when he writes "Get out of Afghanistan now because next year will be too late." False pride and fear of humiliation are driving United States deeper into a quagmire. President Obama along with VP Biden, Sec of State Clinton, and members of Congress are all American Establishment politicians. Obama has removed the option of a U.S. withdrawal from the table. That is the only viable option this country has. If we really want to rebuild Afghanistan, work for women's rights, etc. in Afghanistan, that is best done from the outside by supporting NGOs and other aid, developmental, and human rights groups working at the margins. Waging endless war in Afghanistan will not lead to a U.S. victory, a stable Afghanistan, or reconstruction of that shattered country. That said, Biden's counter-terrorism strategy is a less destructive, less costly, and a more workable policy than the U.S. Army's counter-insurgency strategy.

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 10/08/09 - 10:45 am
0
0
"Beijing's Afghan Gamble" by

"Beijing's Afghan Gamble" by Robt Kaplan [NYTimes] 07 Oct 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/opinion/07kaplan.html

augustalawyer
0
Points
augustalawyer 10/08/09 - 10:47 am
0
0
There is no possible military

There is no possible military victory in Afghanistan. This is a nation building mission with the intent on bringing civilization to illiterate savages with prehistoric and mystical religious beliefs. However, if we leave, a power vacuum will occur and Afghanistan will once again become the center from which terrorism is exported to the rest of the world. So, it comes down to this, either we stay there to drag the country into the 21st century, establish a rule of law, and fight the crazies on our terms in their back yards or we pull out and let them bring the fight to us at a time and location of their choosing. Is an ounce of prevention really worth a pound of cure?

disssman
6
Points
disssman 10/08/09 - 10:57 am
0
0
Wait a minute, I thought the

Wait a minute, I thought the AC was supporting the war in IRAQ because it was a base for terrorists? Oh I forgot that was when "W" was in office. Funny how they forgot to add the words "Saudi Arabian" before the words "Terrorist based in Afghanistan.....". I really wonder how long we will go it alone till we reintroduce the draft? I also wonder if the AC will be so supportive of a war at that time?

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 10/08/09 - 11:04 am
0
0
Right, augustalawyer! United

Right, augustalawyer! United States is going to occupy, pacify, reconstruct & change the mores of 31 million Afghans. Don't forget about instability in Pakistan. We are also going to try to raise the standard of living of 180 million Pakistanis who, by the way, resent us giving them money because Pakistanis perceive the U.S. is interfering in their country. Have you read the news report about this? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/world/asia/06islamabad.html?em "U.S. Push to Expand in Pakistan Meets Resistance" by Jane Perlez [NYTimes 05 Oct 2009]. Islamic militants in Pakistan object to interference & so too does the Pakistani military. Have you read the news reports about Afghanistan, augustalawyer, which say Afghanistan is too poor to support a large standing army? The U.S. military says it will take 3 to 5 years to train an Afghan army. 80 to 90% of Afghans are illiterate. Many experts say it may take twice that long if it is possible to train a competent army that will "stand up". The police force is corrupt in Afghanistan. People hate them more than they hate the Taliban. Are you old enough to remember Vietnam, augustalawyer? Vietnamization did not work. Why repeat mistakes?

SnowBallCity
2
Points
SnowBallCity 10/08/09 - 11:23 am
0
0
Thank the Good Lord I'm not a

Thank the Good Lord I'm not a political news show host wanna be.

sjgraci
2
Points
sjgraci 10/08/09 - 11:50 am
0
0
JRHC is by far the most

JRHC is by far the most knowledgeable poster on these comment boards. Keep it up Cain, the wingnuts are not going to seek the truth for themselves especially when their ONLY sources are the chronicle, limbaugh, and Faux News.

mable8
2
Points
mable8 10/08/09 - 11:56 am
0
0
The big O does not know how

The big O does not know how to lead, let alone make decisions--which is why he needs all those pansies he affectionately refers to as "czars." This inept excuse of a President needs to be impeached--the sooner the better. He has done more damage to the United States than any other President we have had.

corgimom
30047
Points
corgimom 10/08/09 - 12:25 pm
0
0
"millions of slaves were

"millions of slaves were borned"-you can't take what he says seriously.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs