Iran Style RIOTS in Afghanistan ?

The Sunday Times: Reports that Afghanistan could face Iran style riots over the fraudulent election. This is the last thing that the Obama Administration needs, it is already under fire from the liberal left who do not want to send more troops to Afghanistan, it has been reported by CNN that the Defence Secretary Robert Gates wants to send three thousand more troops out to Afghanistan to deal with the IEDs on the roads, this would be separate from the predicted need to send another forty five thousand troops out just to have a chance of winning in Afghanistan. It would be a PR nightmare if the opposition to President Karzai went on the streets, Karzai would be another Diem, the Obama Administration would have to decide either to support Karzai or get a new government. Either action would have an Imperial tone to it, as it would be the USA taking over the old British role of placing a friendly power on the throne of Afghanistan. One has to wonder does Obama get that Afghanistan will be his Afghanistan what ever he does, he seems obsessed by health care reform, what he is missing that when it comes to Afghanistan it not his base that will support him in Afghanistan, its Republicans, Blue Dog Democrats and Independents. The question President Obama has to ask himself, if he goes nuclear on the health care reform and pushes it through with just Democrats and burns Republicans, they can flush his Administration down the nearest singularity, inside a Black Hole when it comes to voting for more money for Afghanistan, Republicans can support Democrats who want to get out of Afghanistan. The American voter might take Obama's health care reform but they will throw him back Chicago if they think they have another Jimmy Carter in their hands. Thus does Obama get it, his best friends might not be his base if he wants to keep US presence in Afghanistan and win re-election in 2012, it might be Republicans. Lets recall when Bill Clinton lost health care reform in his first term he had to move to the centre as the Congress had gone to the Republicans. This move to the center lead to his re-election in 1996. If Obama does not move he will lose big in 210 Mid Term Congressional Elections and for re-election in 2012. Also riots on the streets would hurt UK support for the War, its already in the toilet, PM Gordon Brown can not afford to be seen supporting a Chicago type fix in Afghanistan.

Health Vote = NEW MARCH ?

The New York Times: Reports on a massive demonstration in Washington D.C against President Obama, the NYT writes the following, " A sea of protesters filled the west lawn of the Capitol and spilled onto the National Mall........... opposition to a health care overhaul............broader...........government. " Am impressed that the Liberal New York Times even reported mass demo against Obama. I guess it was to big to be called a bunch of crazies. The Liberal New York Times of course picked out those that are on the edge of the demo, of course missed Democratic scandals and of course Stalin. Lets have another mass demo when the House of Representatives vote on any Bill that is not the compromise Senate Bill that does not have the public option. On the whole support the compromise Senate Finance Bill.

Afghanistan Front News

MOD: Has released the name of the soldier killed on 9/9/09, the soldier was " Corporal John Harrison from The Parachute Regiment " Lets hope there are no more deaths this month in Afghanistan.

Lady Thatcher on ONE Germany - Cold War History

The Times: Article on the political stands of Lady Thatcher at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The article notes that Lady Thatcher was not keen on a united Germany from the USSR records. It should be noted that these are copies of USSR records, to get a fair and balanced view it can be argued that historians needs the records from the archives of Downing Street and the Foreign Office. Read of the Day.

Obama=LBJ / Afghanistan = Vietnam Redux

The Hill: Reports that President Obama could face push back should he request more funding for Afghanistan. Lets recall that although health care reform is important, the USA has forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. It has been stated by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that Afghanistan is not going well, also since the USA removed its troops from the cities of Iraq we have an increase in bombings. In many respects the situation faced by President Obama is worse that faced by LBJ in the late 60s. The latest US military review has stated that the USA needs a new strategy in Afghanistan, going from killing the Taliban/Terrorists to the protection of the people. In many respects this is not new, the Kennedy/Johnson policy of Strategic Hamlets in South Vietnam was meant to protect the people, it didn't work, it was a revision of a British counter terrorism policy of taking the people away from the terrorists, thus moving the people, all it did was make the people furious. Thus it can be postulated the new US policy will not make that mistake, thus the US will have to place troops in the small villages around Afghanistan. Thus that will mean a massive troops increase, that will cost, anything less and you might as well take the troops home, you will lose troops for nothing if you don't back them with more troops. Also in Iraq we have an election in the new year, also there will be around thirty to fifty thousand troops in theatre till 2011. The USA can not afford to leave Iraq in the hands of a nuclear armed Iran, simple reason it has oil. Thus Obama at the end of the day will have to challenge his Liberal base, any failure and he will be Jimmy Carter and he will lose re-election in 2012.

Does Al - Qaida Matter NOW ?

Guardian: Article on the present state of Islamic terrorism. The problem for President Obama and UK PM Brown it can be argued that in many respects the terrorism of 9/11 was defeated by the tough tactics of Bush 43, the USA military removed the supporters of Al - Qaida the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, the CIA lets be honest here used torture, it worked. Thus the USA manged over the years through overt and covert military force to break up Islamic threats. That's the perception, of course the terrorists hit back thus 7/7 and the plots to to down airplanes on the way to the USA. The Guardian article points out that the command and control of Al - Qaida due to the constant US military pressure has been broken, thus new attacks to use a term used these days, is a franchise, the same ideology but not with direct links back to Al - Qaida, or if links very hard to prove. Thus we come to today, the USA and the UK are in Afghanistan, who are fighting the Taliban, it can be argued that Al - Qaida as a presence is in Pakistan, thus we are fighting the Taliban, thus we are in a civil war within Afghanistan. If it was just a civil war that was the issue the West could leave Afghanistan to its bloody fate, but then there is Pakistan. The Taliban of Pakistan are a threat to the secular government of Pakistan, and Pakistan has the bomb. Thus is dark ironic way the War in Afghanistan has nothing to do with Afghanistan, its about Pakistan, if the West was to leave Afghanistan the Taliban of Afghanistan and Pakistan could attack Pakistan from bases within Afghanistan, thus the War in Afghanistan is not a positive war, its not about building up Afghanistan, but that is by product of Western presence it about making sure that the Taliban does not keep bases in Afghanistan as to attack Pakistan. Thus as is held by security services that Al - Qaida is in Pakistan, is it a threat, of course, its a terrorists cell structure, thus it only takes about half dozen men to change the world, as happened eight years ago today. That's the sad part of this War, it will never end, it will be a constant military and police struggle, that's the fate of the 21 Century that was born on 9/11. Read of the Day.

Obama, Health Care and Afghanistan

The New York Times: Reports how there could be delay in sending more troops out to Afghanistan as to keep President Obama's base on the reservation for the fright for health care reform. The NYT writes the following, " A delay on deciding whether to increase American troop levels would also have the political advantage of pushing down the road a split within (the) party " This does recall 1964 when LBJ running in the 1964 Presidential Election tried to keep Vietnam off the front pages, but events in Vietnam forced themselves on to the front pages. Thus can President Obama hope that Afghanistan does not become a major issue over the next few weeks, the Taliban/Terrorists are not enchanted by Obama as is the New York Times. At the end of the day President Obama has two choices, get out of Afghanistan or go in all the way, the middle cause of just keep going with the present policy will lead to a Taliban victory in the end. Thus lets look at the options, if Obama leaves Afghanistan to the Taliban, this places a nuclear armed Pakistan under the threat of the Taliban of Pakistan. Thus the option of cutting and running is not an option, it never was, thus Obama will have to send in more troops. The Democratic Party was enchanted by LBJ at the start, the Great Society all that money for their pet projects, then there was Vietnam and that call by those protesting the War, " How many Kids have you killed today LBJ. " Just replace LBJ with BHO. Thus it will not be health that defines the Obama Presidency, Great Society did not define the Presidency of LBJ it was Vietnam, thus the same with Afghanistan for Obama. The sad part is that Obama shows that he does not get that, if burns the Republicans on health and rams it through Congress with the nuclear option of only 51 votes in the Senate, the Republicans can flush him down the toilet when it comes Afghanistan, if they go with the majority of Democrats who want out of Afghanistan they can make Obama the next Jimmy Carter with aspects of Neville Chamberlain.