Well for the first time in a long time I do believe they just passed a compromise of the tax bill which is the first bipartisan bill passed in the last few years, other than the ones Rhamed down the electorates throats. That is a start.

Compromise? :facepalm:
The Republicans threatened to kill the unemployment extensions that they have always voted for, when the rate was more than 7.2%, in order to give their millionaire buddies a tax break. That's not compromise, that's blackmail, extortion, at the expense of the unemployed.

Well, what is a viable, acceptable, alternative to my slogan ?

Our leaders do not seem to have one, except to keep on slogging.

No slogans, discourse. Do you think any bumper sticker will change people's minds. Will they do anything other than give other drivers the opportunity to attribute your (good/bad) driving, to the (left/right) wing (wackos/angels), thereby furthering the gap between the two? :headshake

If all that is happening amongst the political class is sloganizing then that is a problem. But amongst the ordinary electorate? Sloganising is, and always has been, a vital component of popular political engagement.

A slogan is like the title of a book, it represents much more than it says.
So when you throw up your slogan, you make the assumption that the reader knows the book, rather than a synopsis given to him by a bias pundit.

This is simply not true these days, we have to stop talking in shorthand, and discuss solutions... even if it means breaking down every issue into tedious tiny sections. It's the only hope for getting back on track.

But then the devious, that lead the ignorant, don't want that, do they?

OK, I tried above to give an invitation to discussion, but we're stuck on the value of slogans.

The US plans appear to be for more military excursions in Afghanistan.
The US plans appear to be for new military expansions into Pakistan.

What does it appear the US is doing diplomatically ?
Afghanistan:
We are whining about their corrupt government
We are distributing money at an incredible pace, mainly as bribes
Pakistan:
We are whining about their corrupt government
We are distributing money at an incredible pace, mainly as bribes

So again: "Well, what is a viable, acceptable, alternative to my slogan "?

Or you saw what Richard Holbrooke was so successfully doing. Successful being a compromised term because the corruption in Afghanistan and the constant ongoing cold war between India and Pakistan continues to complicate issues.

There should be no doubt about this. The most dangerous country to America is Pakistan - our supposed ally. That is how complicated is it.

The death of Richard Holbrooke should have been lamented in every post by everyone IF what he was doing was understood. That that is much of the problem. Most all do not.

Every war is only won at the negotiation table. That is the entire purpose of all that death and destruction. To return discussion to a negotiation table.

Appreciate what Richard Holbrooke did to win a Balkans war by eliminating 'big dic' thinking. He and Clinton setup a peace table in Dayton Ohio after using specific and careful military attacks to convince all parties. Well that was not good enough for Milosevic. So NATO made his forces a special target. Milosevic then went to Dayton. And discovered nobody was leaving that military base until peace had been negotiated. Another perfect example of how force is used for only one purpose - the diplomatic solution.

Holbrooke was trying to do same among Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India (and other parties that so many forget to mention). But he had two major problems. The first is what everyone expects because of what George Jr did. And second, the Karzai government is mostly for the protection of the Karzai government. Not for Afghanistan. Deja Vue Nam.

For example, why was the Indian embassy in Afghanistan bombed? You should know this because it so explains the entire problem. Pakistan regards Karzai and Afghanistan as an Indian ally. Bomb the Indian embassy to break relationships between India and Afghanistan. What kind of ally is that? Welcome to a problem America has with our so called allies who may also be selling more nuclear weapons technology around the world.

So why does the world not take so much notice? Remember America’s dumbest president literally rolled a truck through the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty to subvert it. Why would anyone trust Holbrooke when more George Jrs (ie Sarah Palin) are waiting to replace Obama? In complete violation of the NPT, we started supplying India with nuclear material and knowledge. So even more American soldiers may die uselessly in Afghanistan.

If you do not see the connection, well you are not grasping what America diplomats were trying to avoid. As a result, Pakistani military is supporting (as well as fighting) the Taliban either officially or contrary to orders.

If you did not know how George Jr's destruction of NPT makes this even more complex, then you have not even begun to understand why whole hour shows on Charlie Rose with the players do not even begin to explain the issue. It is that complex. It is another Vietnam - no doubt.

In Vietnam, we were defeated in the mid 1960s. But did not realize it until the early 1970s. We may have been defeated in Afghanistan in 2003 due to what George Jr did (ie America does not do nation building). Therefore we must massacre American wealth and soldiers in mass numbers to learn what is true.

BTW, view next door Iran. Those mullahs are laughing with glee at the mess a stupid president got us into. And at the same time, we are hurting their greatest enemies. Iran has so much to thank George Jr for.

Re Richard Holbrooke, I don't know if it's true or not...but the first reports of his "last words"
before surgery and his death were said to be: "You've got to stop the war in Afghanistan".

Later a white house aide tried to spin Holbrooke's words into saying he was just making a joke.

This reminded me of a certain TV talk show back during Viet Nam War
when a frequent question from the "hawks" to the "doves" was a sarcastic:
"How do you propose to get us out of Viet Nam ?
Of course, the hawks believed it was so complicated and difficult their would be no answer to the question.
The answer from that weird actress, Shirley Maclaine, was: "By boat."

Of course it was had it's humorous affect, but it also cut through to what later became evident.
That war had past the point of being "winnable" and it was time to make specific plans for withdrawal.
But without those plans, the end went on to become a publicity fiasco for the US,
and a true disaster for many of our Vietnamese allies.

For far, I'm unable to see a path to the end of the "War on Terror".
Maybe an un-ending war is what some actually want. I hope not.

Meanwhile, I'm listening for some viable arguments or ideas...

Sure, but how, the devil's in the details.

Which is exactly the reason you, or I, can't come up with a viable solution. We don't even know who the players are, and only tw is pompous enough to think he does. There is a shifting alliance of factions, like musical chairs.

We can be sure the Indians and Pakis hate each other. We can be sure all the area countries have a great interest in the outcome, but only shifting glimpses of how they're contributing to the problem/solution. We know Karzai, and his government, is no good.

But there's much, much, more we don't know. Everything we might do has consequences. Just walking away and let the Afghans stew in their own juices might sound tempting, but what else will happen? What will all these interested parties/nations do? What will all these fighting factions do?
Various US government agencies may have part of the answers. Put together, maybe even all the answers. But I don't. I'll bet you don't either.

More critical is something else. The strategic objective. Vietnam was a losing effort for obvious reasons. There was no smoking gun. No strategic objective. And no exit strategy defined by a strategic objective. Without all three, then victory is virtually impossible.

Smoking gun is obvious. But what is a strategic objective?

Desert Storm is a perfect example. The strategic objective was clearly defined by an educated president: liberation of Kuwait. Those who wanted military objectives contrary to that objective advocated an invasion of Baghdad. That would have been a disaster because it was not the strategic objective.

Same applies to Afghanistan. Long before anyone can define a victory or solution, first, one must define a strategic objective. And exit strategy.

Number one in that paragraph - the strategic objective - is getting bin Laden. As was bluntly described here only by a tiny minority nine years ago. And what our extremists routinely avoided to protect their political agenda: when do we go after bin Laden?

Taliban is an obstruction to target number one. Pakistan, that has insufficient reasons to drive out the Taliban, makes the world safe for bin Laden.

So do we invade Pakistan as if it was Cambodia? What made it so easy for Pol Pot to replace Sihanouk? There are consequences of doing what looks good, in detail, without a comprehensive long term plan defined by the strategic objective. In Pakistan, those consequences include nuclear weapons. Consequences if action - every detail - is not defined by a strategic objective.

Balkans so easily solved because Clinton defined a clear strategic objective. Desert Storm succeeded because George Sr (with Powell’s and Scowcroft's assistance) clamped down on others who wanted war without one. Deja Vue Nam. A strategic objective defined only by body counts could only be a defeat. Therefore details only made things in Nam worse.

The ‘leave by boat’ example is valid only if we surrender. Declare bin Laden as the victor. Are you ready to post that conclusion?

I'm not. But then I had no illusions about these consequences back in 2003 when I was so god damn nasty and blunt about it; when lies were advocating a disaster called Mission Accomplished. We are in this mess for the reasons I was posting back in 2003. And why I kept asking the same question every year afterwards: when are we going to go after bin Laden? Those manipulated by details or an extremist political agenda let their details - and not the strategic objective - define what they would do.

Was I too vague then or now?

As long as people use only a dichotomous vocabulary of win/lose,
the alternatives are also dichotomous: victory/surrender.

Withdrawal is a viable alternative, and ultimately it is what is going to happen...
unless the ever-lasting Korean demilitarized zone suddenly becomes the model.
How's that working for us ?

The current administration was handed the existing situation in Afghanistan, but not the situation in Pakistan.
The military use of drones as "gun ships" is a choice that was made more recently.
It is a choice of a losing strategy, both strategically and tactically.
The Pakistani people are already incensed by it,
and eventually they WILL find a way to fight back.
Thus, another ally becomes the enemy.

Setting absolute goals, such as "kill or capture" bin Laden is another one of those traps.
If such is the an all-consuming necessity for the US, drawing him out
into a non-militarized public life would be a viable tactic.
But his public death really wouldn't make that much difference for us,
except perhaps for a short orgasmic moment
(a la Saddam Hussein for Cheney, Bush and a few voyeurs)

How such a US military "withdrawal" is viewed will depend
on the public vocabulary of the administration.
Obama may make a big deal publicly about a token number
of troops being withdrawn in July,
and how much "progress" is being made.
But it's not creditable without the assumption that
our military activities must continue for years.
(2014 = not on my watch)

The viable alternative is to take Gen Petraeus off the hero's perch,
allowing him and his immediate subordinates to personally save face,
and give a new military leadership the clear directive that
the US is withdrawing from Afghanistan,
so a new officer staff can plan and act accordingly... without
personal concern that comes with "not on my watch"

Turns out the statement was totally misquoted and false in the context it is being delivered as some sort of rallying cry by the press.

Please give us the true quotation and context of his words...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1843188/

And here:

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/ken...ized-lefty-mot

And here:
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/15/132087...kes-Last-Words

A simple Google search will give you plenty of sources.