(photo credit: Huffington Post)
“That’s the question many people are asking in reaction to Osama bin Laden’s death. Shortly after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, President Bush made clear that he wanted bin Laden, ‘dead or alive.’ With that mission accomplished — 10 years later and under a different president — some now say that the case for withdrawal is stronger, and President Obama has the political cover to push for a more robust pullout.
“‘The single biggest reason we went into Afghanistan was to get Osama bin Laden,’ said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) at a Center for American Progress event Monday morning.
“If Osama bin Laden was still alive, that would have given some people an argument, ‘Oh you can’t get out of Afghanistan for reputational reasons.’ … Having killed Osama bin Laden deprives people who wanted to stay in Afghanistan for other reasons of the argument that we would be leaving in defeat,” he added.
The rest of the article is here.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Jeff,
Two quick thougths:
1) You are up and at it pretty early this morning
2) For once I think I can say that the Huffington Post has it right!
John
Good morning John,
I’m an early riser: Always have been because it’s the best time of the day to get your work done. No distractions.
Glad you agree with the Huff Post.
We’re going away for some R&R and to celebrate our 20th wedding anniversary for a few days.
When we return I’m going to schedule a lunch with you, Tony Waters and some others, as we’ve discussed. Collecting from the November election (being on the winning side of Prop. 23) if you recall. Thanks for your patience.
I hear they serve both Crow and Humble Pie At 5 Mile House!
Steve,
I think that is the theme of the month. Business should be a booming this month.
The right time was in 2001 but late is better than never. I just can’t imagine what life must be like for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, foreign military destroying/ controlling their countries.
Hi.
So, we pull out of Afghanistan. Great, I never supported the invasion anyway. I always thought we should have invaded Saudi Arabia after 9/11 due to the number of hijackers that originated from there.
So we pull out and then tribal forces like the Taliban move in and take over. Again. And a Theocracy is established. Again. We’ve spent, what?, $500 billion or more there. How many soldiers have died? Who’s benefited from this other than defense contractors? I almost forgot about Toyota from all of the free TV they’ve received.
Bin Laden wasn’t even in Afghanistan. Maybe we should have invaded Pakistan? I got it, let’s keep invading countries until we get the kind of Democracy we want, eh? So far, that hasn’t worked out to well for us over the past 60 years.
Viewing the question from a political point of view, look for something happening with both Afghanistan and Iraq before the next Presidential election, maybe not a pull out from one or both, but some definitive move in that direction, depending also on what happens in Libya, Syria, other mideast oil countries.
The Afghan government is so corrupt, no matter how long we stay, as soon as we leave it will fail its people. Give their people internet access/twitter and they will figure it out themselves. Let them uprise against their own government and the Talaban. Bring our Brave Troops home…we have work for them on the Mexican Border.
Pete K,
The average Afghan has no electricity in their home just like 50% of the worlds population. Afghanistan could do just fine if developed nations would stop trying to invade and occupy the country. They have been trying since Alexander the Great and have failed every time. Afghanistan is the place where superpowers go to die.
Ben; I couldn’t agree with you more. Again, Bring Our Troops Home.
I am 100% with you Pete.
Just think what a Million dollars in Education would have now paid out in that country, when we were sending them arms back in the 90′s!
Easier said than done. Look at Mortenson. It is a misunderstanding that money can buy education. It no more can buy education than only gasoline can make a car go.
I just found out that Osama lived just down the street from where I stayed in Pakistan last year. I almost remember the building. It never made sense he could hide out in the country but this location makes perfect sense. Personally, I think killing him is like taking the jacket off of a book. Same thing but only looks different. I hope I am wrong.
A colleague and I were discussing this today. Perhaps the ‘War on Terror’ is more effectively fought the way bin Laden was taken out; with small groups of Special Forces rather than large armies.
I’m no military expert but I’m sure it would be cheaper and, perhaps, more effective.
The best way to fight the war on terror would be to promote infrastructure projects with non-military groups. The empowerment of women around the planet is one of the ways we can combat global warming/ climate change, terrorism, global poverty, by addressing the overpopulation of the planet.
Much cheaper and more effective. The number one thing is to leave religion and our culture out of the mix. Build infrastructure with local materials and labor producing something that is theirs to protect and maintain.
There is nothing wrong with uncorrupted religions; it is the culture within and without religion that has become ill, and that surely needs to change. Empowerment of women can create conflict if it entails sharing power and would not be helpful. Women can be completely empowered with men admiring them. I have seen it. It is possible.