While Obama's news conferences, appearances, and general statements on the World stage (during this trip) have been impressive, some very knowledgeable Middle East experts feel that he needs to modify his approach to Afghanistan. See, for example, Juan Cole today in Salon "Obama is saying the wrong things about Afghanistan", and Eric Margolis on July 21 in his blog, “OBAMA, THE DEMOCRATIC ‘WAR PRESIDENT’.

Afghanistan appears to agree with US venture interests re:pipeline deals, so they get the troop increase.

This is a big hint to Iraq. Obama and McCain both got the memo.

"The Times' reasons for not running the op-ed were, on the
whole, fair." I could not agree with this statement. Since when
does a newspaper dictate the content or tone of an Op Ed. I
would not allow them to dictate to me and certainly Senator
McCain has the right to have his views reported in the NYT
unvarnished. This is an terrible example of liberal bias and the
Times should apologize to Mr. McCain and run the piece for the
record.

"McCain's piece,... is essentially an attack piece on Obama, and
as such is not a substantive policy statement." Now you are
showing your own bias. If Obama's attacks on Bush's Iraq policy
are "substantive" policy statements, then why aren't McCain's
attacks on Obama's policy prescriptions "substantive" as well?
You do your readers a disservice with such broad brush criticism
of one candidate while favoring the other.

I read both pieces before I was aware that the Times had refused to run the McCain commentary. At least, I assume it was the commentary the Times refused to print. They were on the OP page of one of the central Cal papers, the "Bakersfield Californian". Although I was unaware of the Times refusal to run McCain's piece, and their reasoning, I was struck by how Obama's piece discussed policy, and McCain's piece seemed to be just one more divisive bit of bullshit swiftboating and exageration about the "success" of the so-called "surge".

I am dissappointed that the NYTs apparently doesn't believe their readership is intelligent enough to see the dichotomy between the two pieces, and draw their own conclusions as to the motives behind the two pieces, and their respective veracity. McCain is exhibiting the kind of slimeball politics we have come to expect from these pieces of shit. Why not just print it, and let the readers see what he's made of?

I see a commentor, above, trying to claim a "liberal bias" on the part of the NYTimes. Thats laughable. If the NYTimes was anything other than just another flattened roll of toilet paper, they would be telling the American people the TRUTH about how Bush has bought a temporary lapse in the violence in Iraq, instead of selling this "successs of the surge" propaganda. The fact that The NYTimes may be showing some bias towards Obama, (and I'm not exactly buyin' that premise), should actually concern the Obama supportors, because this is the same rag that sold you the Iraq war, and has kissed Bush's ass for eight years now by selling you a bunch of fearmongering monkey shit.

Andrew Lebovich continues to ruminate on his doubts about the surge and on General Petraeus’s counterinsurgency plan. He states, “The strategic outcome of the surge cannot be determined now” as it depends on the establishment of a democratic Iraq “after our occupation...has ended.” And if the gains of the surge are so fragile and can be lost with a resurgence of al Qaeda how can one say that “Petraeus’s counterinsurgency plan is proven?” He is also concerned about the “Sons of Iraq and other local militias’ being integrated “into the Iraqi security forces” and some of the corrupt practices of the Iraqi government.

Starting in reverse of his concerns, it’s decal like clear that he has not learned anything from the mistakes of the Bush administration when in toto disbanded the Iraq army instead of integrating it in the new army of the Interim government that would have forestalled the future insurgency. The Maliki government is integrating the Sons of Iraq and other militias and hence effectively disarming them instead of letting them hibernate until a possible next round of violence. Lebovich also is oblivious of the fact that corruption affects all governments that have not as yet found their point of stability and their members have a strong proclivity to get as much as they can from an assumed short term in office. However, with the stabilization of the government, as it seems to be happening now in Iraq, corruption can no longer be a stable staple feeding the mouths of corrupt officials.

As to the gains emanating from the surge, Lebovich apparently is unaware that one may have a perfect investment plan that will give one immense gains but if one “misinvests” or squanders these gains in half baked enterprises one is bound to lose them. This however does not impugn or diminish in any way the perfection of the original investment plan. And Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy falls in this category. The danger lies in squandering these gains, as McCain correctly says, before they reach their stated goal, i.e., a democratic Iraq.

Lastly, Lebovich does not perceive that even the most successful of counterinsurgency strategies can only be effective in a different geopolitical milieu if they make the necessary improvisations and modalities in the new context of their implementation. And this elementary principle applies in Afghanistan.

Kotzabasis, I seriously doubt that there is any point in arguing
with someone who, in a comment on the coming US elections,
compares John McCain to the obsessed Melville character
Captain Ahab - meant as a complement from an admiring fan!

...as you`ve done recently on your blog:

"It’s for all the above reasons that the November election will be
a test match whether the hard ball of politics will be pitched by
the weak hands of a florid flashy political amateur, by the
populist spin-change of Obama, or by the firm hands of the
principled experienced politician McCain who embodies
Melville’s Captain Ahab’s spirit–which is the spirit of America–
that would strike the sun if it insulted him, as McCaine did from
his cell in Vietnam."

I would certainly not say that the spirit of Captain Ahab is "the
spirit of America", as you claim. To me it seems like a lot of
Americans are tired of a war that make no sense to them.

However, your (Australian, I believe) voice is similar to the voice
and mentality you see among some Americans, obsessed with
enemies, even willing to invent enemies if they did not exist.

Thus my reply to one of your points, which you share with some
hopeful optimists who want to end this war, as well as some
people as obsessed as Captain Ahab with searching for and
fighting "the enemy", and who want this war to last for
generations:
It`s weird to listen to all those who are sure that the "surge" is
a success. Currently, there is absolutely no way to know
whether this is a success, or a tactical retreat, regrouping,
waiting for better opportunities, etc...
Petraeus has two enemies: 1) the insurgents, 2) time - i.e. the
lack of patience among Americans and some politicians in
Washington DC. The insurgents have one enemy: the Americans.
They have time on their side.

We`ll have to wait a year or two before we know anything for
sure about the effects and results of the "surge". And we`ll have
to wait several decades before we know the real outcome of this
mess started by Bush, Cheney and the rest of them.

And frankly, Kotzabasis, striking the sun does not seem to be
such a good idea. Even if you feel insulted by it, I would suggest
a change of sunglasses. You should really stop using those that
filter the world into threatening shapes and psychedelic colors
that you`ve been wearing lately.

Paul Norheim
It’s the great American literary Shakespearean scholar Harold Bloom who has depicted Captain Ahab as the “spirit of America-that would strike the sun if it insulted him,” which is his quote and his metaphor. Obviously you are not an aficionado of great metaphors and you gratuitously pass your misty “sunglasses” to others so they will not see them and appreciate their literary power.

Are al-Qaeda, the Taliban and its sundry affiliates after 9/11 an invented enemy to you? In what cuckoo land are you living? And why do you have to encase part of your argument in a big lie by implying that McCain said we have to fight this war for generations. Haven’t you got a modicum of amour propre for yourself?

kotzabasis,
twenty years ago a close friend of mine interviewed Harold
Bloom for a Norwegian literary magazine we made at that time,
and I`ve always admired Bloom since then. But I certainly would
not recommend applying his great literary insights directly to
geo-politics. The metaphor is great in an existential and literary
sense. In a political context, and especially in world politics -
connecting it to the "war on terrorism" - it has disastrous
consequences. Thus my profane allusion to your sun glasses.

I`ve seen you applying quotes from the great ironical author
Robert Musil in similar ways, and I don`t find it appropriate or
wise to do so.

You`ve supported the current US governments war on terror for
a long time, and you seem to share Bush`s and Cheney`s
approach to terrorism: it`s that White Whale Captain Ahab was
so obsessed with, and requires generations to conquer. I don`t
share that opinion and obsession, and believe that this long war
serves as a camouflage for a lot of other nasty things. McCain
may not share that view, but he recently said that the Iraqi
occupation may last for 100 years. That`s three generations.

Afghanistan is a trap, at least in the sense that since progressives have been saying for six years that Bush dropped the ball by diverting the military from Afghanistan to Iraq, now attention must be paid to the former.

Old Osama must be smiling; after luring us into Iraq, we are being drawn ever deeper into Afghanistan, a place of broken dreams for the West.

Eric Margolis is a Taliban apologist. E.g., he wrote that the Taliban were justified in going after girls' schools because the schools were infiltrated by Communists. He ignores the fact that the US asked the Taliban for Osama bin Laden to be expelled to a country where he could be extradited 30 times before 9/11; and only mentions what happened after 9/11, when the Taliban sang the song they had sung 30 times previously, and this time the US did not accept it.

I would not take anything Margolis says seriously, even if by chance it happens to be right.

Paul Norheim
“Camouflage for a lot of other nasty things.” Dare to name those nasty things instead of leaving them in a state of obfuscation. Or are you concerned that if you spelt them out they would be so ludicrous that they would stick like egg on your face and you would need a nanny to clean them up.

All of us are afflicted with “obsessions,” some of them positive and others negative, as we are all made by the dicta of human nature. Einstein had his magnum obsession with science, and you yourself have your own mini obsession from which you cannot liberate yourself, intellectual jugglery. McCain was making the no less “profane allusion” to the long BENIGN occupation of Japan that led the latter to democracy and unparalleled economic prosperity within a short time. His view had no relation at all to the nefarious purpose which you continue to adhere to his quote of 100 years long war that so many of your intellectual cognates over the Atlantic attempted to accuse him with.

Nasty things?

I`ll just mention one here - probably the worst of all those
nasty things: more or less unlimited power to the president to
define who is an enemy, where to fight the enemy and which
methods to use against the enemy, due to extraordinary
circumstances.
If these circumstances, this state of emergency, defined
broadly as a "War on terrorism", may take generations to
overcome, (Rumsfeld and Cheney hinted to that, among others),
we are witnessing a transition from a democratic republic, one
of the greatest achievements in modern history, to a simple, but
extremely powerful dictatorship.

Many of the other nasty things can be regarded as mere
consequences of such a transition. You can pick up any
mainstream newspaper at almost any day and inform yourself
about them.

Paul Norheim
I had a feeling that you would be eating your eggs like a toddler.Do you seriously consider that it was the "unlimited power to the president to define who is an enemy", and NOT the limitless portentous and great threat that defined "the enemy" in the aftermath of 9/11?" And which 90 per cent of Americans acknowledged as the enemy being in Afghanistan when they supported the Bush administration in its invasion of that country?
And was the latter decision emanating from a nascent dictatorship?

The transition you are witnessing from a "democratic republic" to an "extremely powerful dictatorship" is a simulacrum, rising from the copious well of your fantasies, not reality.

Perhaps I should mention a second example from the long list of
nasty things done under the cover of "the war on terror"?

What about the decision to invade Iraq?

But then, who knows? Perhaps you were among those who
believed, and still believe, that there was a connection between
Saddam and al Quaeda?

And your man, your dear Captein Ahab aka McCain, sometimes
believes that Iran is training and supporting al Quaeda. These
guys are capable of connecting just about anything to 9.11.

No Good Reason to Spike McCain's Op-Ed

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/no_journalistic_reason_to_spik.html

Paul Norheim

At least you are adept in making improvizations to your merry-go-round childishly fatuous argument. No connection with al-Qaeda? If you had read the complete report of the National Intelligence Estimate you would have seen ample evidence for that connection. But it's obvious that you FELL for the media's 'catchall' misleading headline of "No Smoking Gun," in regards to the connection.

Adieu my dear friend.

kotzabasis, if your claims made any sense, I may have admired
your stubbornness. I doubt that even George W. Bush,
Wolfowitz, Perle and Feith walk around still believing in some
smoking gun in Iraq (WMD) or connections to the 9.11 plotters
(the Praha-meeting). The only exception I can think of among
the war-on-terror plotters is Dick Cheney.

We live in very different worlds, kotzabasis, and not only in a
geographical sense. I tend to be more afraid of car accidents,
malaria and cigarets (I`m a smoker) than terrorists or islamists;
and statistics confirm my fears.
I don´t see the world basically as a dualistic struggle between
good and evil forces (though there are plenty of good and evil
forces around). And if some powerful men decided to risk the
fragile order and relative stability and peace of the world in an
effort to eliminate "terrorism" or islamists once and for all, I
would consider that as an unforgivable act of foolishness.

Bush and Cheney will soon leave the White House. But do not
despair, kotzabasis: there`s still plenty of room for madness
and Ahabs, for horror and endgames. Afghanistan is a trap.
Brzezinski knew that when he manipulated the Russians to
attack the country in 1980: he wanted to give them "their
Vietnam". But Afghanistan is not Vietnam, and may even
represent something much worse for America, NATO forces, and
big parts of the world. Add Pakistan into this "war on terror" in
much more involved ways, as Obama seems willing to do, and
you may get your apocalyptic dreams fulfilled.

Yeah, our little dispute was probably a waste of time for both of
us. But I wish you a happy, rich and peaceful life in retirement
in Australia.