Bill Moyers on Afghanistan


Our country wonders this weekend what is on President Obama's mind. He is apparently, about to bring months of deliberation to a close and answer General Stanley McChrystal's request for more troops in Afghanistan. When he finally announces how many, why, and at what cost, he will most likely have defined his presidency, for the consequences will be far-reaching and unpredictable. As I read and listen and wait with all of you for answers, I have been thinking about the mind of another president, Lyndon B. Johnson.

...

Lyndon Johnson secretly recorded many of the phone calls and conversations he had in the White House. In this broadcast, you're going to hear excerpts that reveal how he wrestled over what to do in Vietnam. There are hours of tapes and the audio quality is not the best, but I've chosen a few to give you an insight into the mind of one president facing the choice of whether or not to send more and more American soldiers to fight in a far-away and strange place.

The show is definately worth watching or reading. Whatever The Big O's decision you can rest assured that it will be a political one..., not a moral one. Just as LBJ's decisions were.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON: And I told them, let's try to find an amendment that will-we haven't got any Congress that will go with us and we haven't got any mothers that will go with us in a war. And nine months I'm just an inherited-I'm a trustee. I've got to win an election. Or Nixon or somebody else has. And then you can make a decision. But in the meantime, let's see if we can't find enough things to do to keep them off base, and to stop these shipments that are coming in from Laos, and pick a few selected targets to upset them a little bit, without getting another Korean operation started.

Moyers sums it up...,

BILL MOYERS: Now in a different world, at a different time, and with a different president, we face the prospect of enlarging a different war. But once again we're fighting in remote provinces against an enemy who can bleed us slowly and wait us out, because he will still be there when we are gone.

Once again, we are caught between warring factions in a country where other foreign powers fail before us. Once again, every setback brings a call for more troops, although no one can say how long they will be there or what it means to win. Once again, the government we are trying to help is hopelessly corrupt and incompetent.

And once again, a President pushing for critical change at home is being pressured to stop dithering, be tough, show he's got the guts, by sending young people seven thousand miles from home to fight and die, while their own country is coming apart.

And once again, the loudest case for enlarging the war is being made by those who will not have to fight it, who will be safely in their beds while the war grinds on. And once again, a small circle of advisers debates the course of action, but one man will make the decision.

We will never know what would have happened if Lyndon Johnson had said no to more war. We know what happened because he said yes.

That's it for the Journal. I'm Bill Moyers. See you next time.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11202009/transcript1.html


Scott R. November 21, 2009 - 12:59pm
( categories: Miscellany | Opinion )

If Obama moves forward with a troop buildup then I say it's time to form an opposition to his presidency.

Michael Collins November 21, 2009 - 2:08pm

it means we start looking for Dem to replace him in 2012. I will not feed the crazy.

I think he will increase the force by 20,000, move to the cities and most of the new troops will be used for training the police and army. With that many troops in country and in the cities they should be used for rebuilding the infrastructure instead of feeding the corruption with aid money. A much better way to win hearts and minds. Whatever did happen to the Army Corp of Engineers? What do you think?

Tina November 22, 2009 - 10:54am

http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/how_to_exit_afghanistan

October 2, 2009 · By Erik Leaver
Five pillars of an exit strategy for Afghanistan.

For years, the war in Afghanistan has been in crisis. But now with a failed Afghan election, the resurgence of the Taliban as a political power, NATO allies withdrawing from the battlefield, and Pakistan's tribal areas under increasing influence from the Taliban and al-Qaeda, the situation looks worse than ever. Obama and his team are spinning their wheels trying to devise a policy to right the sinking ship, but the most sensible solution, for Afghans and U.S. citizens, is to start planning a way out.

As U.S. and NATO troops start the ninth year of war, there is little progress to be shown. This year has proven to be the most deadly for U.S. and coalition troops since the war began. Over 1,500 Afghan civilians have died this year and more than 450 Afghan security forces have died.

Sadly, the sacrifices these solders made have not resulted in better conditions for Afghans on the ground. Agricultural production is at its lowest since the war began, only 23% of the population has access to clean drinking water, and 40% lives below the poverty line. Life expectancy in Afghanistan is 44 years. Three million Afghans have fled their country. According to a UN threat assessment, 40% of Afghanistan is today either Taliban-controlled or a high-risk area for insurgent attacks.

Beyond the human toll, the war is taking a severe financial hit on the United States. To date, the U.S. has spent more than $220 billion in Afghanistan. Over 90% of that spending has been for the military. Today, the U.S. is spending $4 billion a month in Afghanistan and has eclipsed the costs of Iraq for the first time.

But policymakers in Washington don't see Afghanistan being in crisis for these reasons. Instead, the focus is on the tension between the White House and the Department of Defense on two key questions: what is the proper mission for troops and should the United States send additional soldiers?

Few players in Washington are asking the most important questions, is there a role for troops at this point at all, what does an exit strategy look like and when can we get there?

Michael Collins November 21, 2009 - 2:09pm

We have no vital national interest in Afghanistan. We don't care who runs their government. All we care about is that al-Qaeda doesn't re-establish training camps there, and that they don't cut off our heroin.

We should just pack up and leave, with the understanding that we won't tolerate the return of al-Qaeda. If a-Q does come back, we'll be back with another dose of "regime change" and chase a-Q out again. If the Taliban can take over, more power to them. They will understand that if they want to stay in power, they have to keep the a-Q foreigners out.

tla November 21, 2009 - 3:45pm

On October 29, 2001, while the Taliban’s rule over Afghanistan was under assault, the regime’s ambassador in Islamabad gave a chaotic press conference in front of several dozen reporters sitting on the grass. On the Taliban diplomat’s right sat his interpreter, Ahmad Rateb Popal, a man with an imposing presence. Like the ambassador, Popal wore a black turban, and he had a huge bushy beard. He had a black patch over his right eye socket, a prosthetic left arm and a deformed right hand, the result of injuries from an explosives mishap during an old operation against the Soviets in Kabul.

But Popal was more than just a former mujahedeen. In 1988, a year before the Soviets fled Afghanistan, Popal had been charged in the United States with conspiring to import more than a kilo of heroin. Court records show he was released from prison in 1997.

Flash forward to 2009, and Afghanistan is ruled by Popal’s cousin President Hamid Karzai. Popal has cut his huge beard down to a neatly trimmed one and has become an immensely wealthy businessman, along with his brother Rashid Popal, who in a separate case pleaded guilty to a heroin charge in 1996 in Brooklyn. The Popal brothers control the huge Watan Group in Afghanistan, a consortium engaged in telecommunications, logistics and, most important, security. Watan Risk Management, the Popals’ private military arm, is one of the few dozen private security companies in Afghanistan. One of Watan’s enterprises, key to the war effort, is protecting convoys of Afghan trucks heading from Kabul to Kandahar, carrying American supplies.

Welcome to the wartime contracting bazaar in Afghanistan. It is a virtual carnival of improbable characters and shady connections, with former CIA officials and ex-military officers joining hands with former Taliban and mujahedeen to collect US government funds in the name of the war effort.

In this grotesque carnival, the US military’s contractors are forced to pay suspected insurgents to protect American supply routes. It is an accepted fact of the military logistics operation in Afghanistan that the US government funds the very forces American troops are fighting. And it is a deadly irony, because these funds add up to a huge amount of money for the Taliban. “It’s a big part of their income,” one of the top Afghan government security officials told The Nation in an interview. In fact, US military officials in Kabul estimate that a minimum of 10 percent of the Pentagon’s logistics contracts–hundreds of millions of dollars–consists of payments to insurgents.

Much more of this story by Aron Roston at the LINK


""If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can’t it get us out?" - Will Rogers (1879-1935)

Chickadee November 21, 2009 - 5:19pm

New York Times Nov. 20

The PBS mainstay Bill Moyers said he was retiring from weekly television and would end his Friday night public affairs show, "Bill Moyers Journal," on April 30, 2010. That date will also be the last for "Now on PBS," which has been canceled.

Mr. Moyers said he had been planning for some time to retire the program on Dec. 25, but was asked by PBS to raise the funds to continue through April, which he did.

"I am 75 years old,” he said of the decision to end the series, which began in April 2007. The program has recently been having a "good run of it," he added in a telephone interview on Friday, "so I feel it’s time." He said he was not quitting television work, although he has no new projects planned.

"Now" began in January 2002, and was originally hosted by Mr. Moyers. John Siceloff, the executive producer, said the program, hosted now by David Brancaccio, had been "a unique voice at a time when outlets for insightful journalism are diminishing. We’re all looking for places to continue that work."

More at link: http://tinyurl.com/ybkfjwa

Michael Collins November 21, 2009 - 6:46pm

(not for general consumption but) for use in Western European hospitals as a pain reliever. It can't be more addictive or worse than oxycotin and all that other crap the pharmas shove down our throats and it give Afghanistan an instant and legit source of taxable income. Help the Afghanis get the fields under govt control, build some roads, schools, hospitals, then bug out. Let them build their own country or not, but they need some sort of GDP if they are ever going to get away from extremism.

zot23 November 21, 2009 - 10:08pm

...than oxycontin. Opium still has all of it's alkaloids so the addiction is a bit more complex. In any event all drugs should be legalized, IMO.
I'm really going to miss Moyers; he's one amazing guy and Fridays show was awesome. Obama should be required to listen to that show.


"We're all of us children in a vast kindergarten trying to spell God's name with the wrong alphabet blocks." ~ Edwin Arlington Robinson

Celsius 233 November 21, 2009 - 11:47pm

Can be found: here.

“Brevity is the soul of wit. It is also the soul of the poor fucker up to his ass in alligators." ~ not-Richard Haass, channeling his inner Bard

JustPlainDave November 21, 2009 - 10:27pm

a new, successful U.S. strategy should look like:

Secure key cities and roads: If a state can be rebuilt in Afghanistan it will start in the cities, so less energy should be focused on the Pashtun countryside. This approach will decrease Coalition casualties and increase local participation.

Redistribute Coalition troops: Troops are heavily deployed in the South and East where the prospects for success are low. They should be refocused on the North, where the Taliban can be stopped.

Redistribute development aid: Development dollars are currently being directed most heavily to areas where Coalition control is weakest. These scarce resources should instead be focused on the more peaceful districts of Afghanistan.

Build an Afghan partner: Increase the size and capabilities of the Afghan National Army, but understand that this will not happen overnight. An Afghan army of 150,000 by 2015 is a realistic and achievable goal.

---------

The middle two are doable, but the first and fourth point? We can't do those things now and have no way to do so. How can you secure key roads when they wind for hundreds of miles in deep valleys surrounded by mountain cliffs on both sides? Bridges in the middle of nowhere with little cover and no ammenities? Where do you get this magical local force to train? Take 50th generaton goat herders and train them to be CTUs?

Afghanistan is hopeless, that's why Obama can't decide on an option. None of them can bring a victtory, most of them probably don't even allow to retreat and save face at this point.

Just get out and we'll deal with the fallout as it comes.

zot23 November 22, 2009 - 10:43am

Hashish army

Here's the reality on the ground. Unfortunately the imbed function has been disabled for this video so you must go to the link to watch it.


""If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can’t it get us out?" - Will Rogers (1879-1935)

Chickadee November 22, 2009 - 12:34pm

">

This is Part 8 of an outstanding series from the BBC. Watch the entire series here. (Requires scrolling through the menu.)


""If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can’t it get us out?" - Will Rogers (1879-1935)

Chickadee November 22, 2009 - 12:51pm

Do you think media coverage in the U.S. is biased? We are looking for people interested in politics to take our Institutional Research Board approved study.

Many people feel that the media can lead people in different ideological directions. We are Smith College students in a Senior Political Psychology Seminar and we want to invite you to take our survey. We are investigating the relationship between media coverage and political information. If you take our short, confidential survey you can choose to be entered into a raffle for a $50 gift certificate to Amazon.com. If you are interested, follow this link to Surveymonkey.com

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=T4JLkCcNbd7TRexboclKxA_3d_3d

College Student November 23, 2009 - 12:11am

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.