As the focus of the "War on Terror" gradually shifts back to Afghanistan, there needs to be a serious, sustained discussion of how to "win" against the newly resurgent Taliban and other terrorist elements there. I think the quagmire we've had to deal with in Iraq suggests that any nation-building type approach, focused on repairing the Afghan society and government as a whole, is going to cost a full pantload of money, military resources, and American lives. In fact, I would argue that Afghanistan, much moreso than Iraq, is a country almost designed to suck resources from global powers who get militarily bogged down there. Corruption is pervasive, and the tribal mindset that dominates the culture and government (or lack thereof) means that any occupying power has to deal with hundreds of small, antagonistic factions rather than a unified, legitimate regime. If the U.S. bases its standard of victory on some sort of overwhelming democratic change taking place in Afghanistan, I predict we'll have a much longer and harder fight on our hands than we had in Iraq.

Summary: This diary might be a waste of time in that I could see some more enlightened Kossack answering my question within five minutes of me posting.  But I need to know the answer nonetheless.

What, precisely, is Mr. Obama shooting for with his "we have to focus on Afghanistan" thinking?

Okay, here's another of my reviews focusing on documentaries and features that do a good job of addressing the current conflict in the Middle East and current U.S. policies.

My Country, My Country came out about a year ago. It's well-worth seeking out on DVD and offers one of the few Iraqi perspectives of what effect our country's policies and actions have had on Iraq after the fall of Saddam.

Review below the fold...

(BTW apologies on the poll. I should have said which of these movies did you think was best... you only get one choice)

The AP has today fallen into and is unfortunately promoting the fallacy that the Guantanamo Military Tribunals, that have started with the case against Salim Hamdan, are War Crime trials.

It is not easy to describe them, in fact, as late as yesterday the AFP described them as "special "war on terror" military tribunals".  But make no mistake, they are not War Crimes Trials.

Has anyone else noticed the egregious, misleading use of the term "war crimes trials," by the mainstream media in describing the Military Commission Act trials that the Bush administration is now launching in Guantanamo?

Isn't it odd that the Bush administration and the brain dead, lazy, propogandistic mainstream media (including NPR of course) would start calling the military commissions trials, "war crimes trials," just as domestic and international interest in prosecuting former and current Bush administration officials for "war crimes" is reaching an all time high, and various Bush administration officials are being warned against travelling to Europe, where they might be subject to arrest for war crimes, after the end of their catastrophic administration?

Wasn't one of Rove's favorite tactics painting your enemy with your own faults -- such as calling John Kerry a coward to confuse the issue about Bush's desertion from the Texas Air National Guard -- or otherwise just plain confusing the public?

Remember this little tidbit of news (via here) from last month? Here's a refresher:

Is Naomi Wolf's predicted "fascist shift" accelerating, using the anti-migrant controversy as another "facilitating issue"?

As The NYT reported Sunday, a simple traffic stop of Juana Villegas, an illegal immigrant from Mexico who was nine months pregnant, turned into another case of Homeland Security Hell, of criminalizing poverty or the "crime" of not having "proper paperwork", in this case by torture.

But this was first reported at Political Salsa on June 13th by Tim Chavez, who heard her and described the torture, reminding him of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. It seems the war supposedly started to combat terrorism has now come home to torment anyone without the right paperwork: without papers, they're demons...
But is this even more sinister??

Now here's a story

Yes, I said a story.
Stories can be true, not true, not quite true, and completely false.
I think this one belongs somewhere in between.

I must say, I'm a bit peeved this Sunday, with what's coming from Afghanistan.  Interviews with and reports about Barack from Kabul this morning are focusing on  the candidate's "War on Terror" positions.  And Obama, for my money, is not showing the vision or smarts to re-frame that most tiresome of Bush administration memes.

As many of you probably know, the war in Afghanistan is not going so good. There are many reasons for this, from the low numbers of occupation forces, to the nearly complete lack of understanding of the culture, to the insurgent safe havens across the Pakistan border.

Sadly, Republicans and Democrats have settled on a nearly identical response to the problem. At least 2 new brigades will be sent, with more funds, more cross border operations into Pakistan, and a general browbeating diplomatic offensive will take place in the region. But it is not too late to launch a diplomatic push where it would actually make a difference - with the Taliban themselves. We need to try to understand the local culture and work within it to get al Qaeda, which is as foreign to the region as we are, out, and then get out ourselves.

George Bush and Dick Cheney, front men for Big Oil, have decided to start surrendering military bases in Afghanistan so that they can continue their desperate attemps to steal Iraq's oil.  

George and Dick, their Big Oil pals, and their protege John McSame are hoping Iraqi officials will change their minds and let Exxon et al take their oil (instead of advising them as Iraqis want).  No wonder Bush wants offshore oil drilling so badly:  his adventure to find oil in Iraq has failed just like it did when he tried to start up an oil business in Texas.  Harken was his company's name if I recall correctly.

Meanwhile, Bin Laden and his ilk in Pakistan are laughing their chump asses off as they slowly start to expand their safe haven out of Pakistan back into Afghanistan.  So much for the War on Terra George Bush you buffoon:

Is the "surge" succeeding?  If we stick with the "surge" will we "win?"  If we leave Iraq will we lose?  Implicit in each of these questions are more fundamental questions, like: who are we fighting and why?  what are our goals and why?  These are strategic questions that should dictate our policy and someone should give kudos to Obama for having the judgment to appreciate the need for a comprehensive strategic vision.

Focusing on the "surge" in Iraq is a misplaced focus on "a" tactic and not necessarily a meaningful measure of long term success in the wider war.  The "surge" is simply one tactic we've employed in Iraq, but whether it is "succeeding" or not does not answer the bigger questions of whether we should be there at all, how long we should be there and what we are hoping to accomplish while there.  

Obama's speech yesterday was the first to define a broad strategic vision for true security and a leadership role for this Country at the dawn of the New Global Age.  The following is a discussion of guerilla tactics, Iraq and the implications of each with respect to our broader global objectives.

My Brother has asked that I post this on all 'relevant' blogs and what better choice than Kos?

In what I am finding to be a strikingly complex and tragically ill-rendered decision, the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has held en banc that the President has both inherent Constitutional authority and statutory authority under the 2001 AUMF to detain civilians, captured within the United States, indefinitely without charge. As I did with Boumediene and Heller I will be reading the decision as quickly as I can and updating with the details as I understand them.

This is what SCOTUSBlog has to say. At the moment they are ahead of me.

As I will explain below the fold this decision is complex and I may be a bit slow given that I have not had the chance to prepare for this. However, (and I'll go into the details of this in a bit. I've got to make dinner), Traxler at least holds that persons designated as "unlawful enemy combatants" have the right to bring a habeas claim challenging their status. I have always read Quirin to say this (though most do not) and Boumediene gets directly to this point.

By Barry Steinhardt, Director, ACLU Technology & Liberty Project

The "terrorist" watch list now has more than one million names. Do you feel safer now?

Since February we’ve been tracking the size of our government’s list of ostensible terrorist suspects, which according to the government’s own report (pdf) has been rising at a rate of 20,000 per month.

I just thought I'd take a little time to respond to the raging debate about the New Yorker magazine cover. No, this will not be another diary about who's right and who's wrong, or who will get the joke and who won't, or whether it will be used by the right or not, or anything else that's being thrown about in a diary that has so many comments my PC froze trying to respond. After observing this incident and weighing it against everything else that's occurred in this election cycle, my simple observation is this....

This will be a bit of a rant.

I was in DC recently.   I was near the Whitehouse when very bored looking police blocked all traffic.   Suddenly a motorcade appears of mostly black SUV's with Secret Service staring battle like out of some of them.  They must have been going 60+mph on a little side street near the Whitehouse.  Soon  after, I heard on the radio it was VP Cheney.

What immediately popped into my mind was Baghdad.   These guys were behaving like they were in eminent threat just like they were driving around Baghdad, not Washington D.C.  It was just like scenes out of Syriana

Looking at my past postings on Daily Kos there are far too many times when I have ridden the wave of emotion to intellectual oblivion. This was no different when it came to Obama's FISA vote. Some time has passed and the musings of rational thought have managed to creep back into my head. I was advocating "cutting the funds" to the Obama campaign and even the notion of writing a candidate in come November. It is obvious these are grave mistakes if too many people were to go this route. While Obama's FISA vote is inexcusable at best, like myself, he is far from a perfect man. It only took seconds for me to think of a McCain victory to realize the true tragedy this nation faces should the so-called "straight talk" express be parked at the White House on inauguration day.