Brand brand brand. A concept that became trite shortly after it was introduced outside the circles of real commodities. Jerome is obsessed with "brand," which by the way, can't actually dither, but Obama is focused on governing and leading.
Well, I probably know more about Afghan history than you. At least I know enough to realize it's not the same as it was over a century ago, despite Western stereotypes, and I know enough not to base my impressions on a Sean Connery film (Good grief!). If you're going to be insulting, try to provide better sources, will ya?
My "relatively stable" is a clear recognition of the historical developments and the difficulty of nation-building in the region. However, it was appropriate to engage in Afghanistan in the first place, to dislodge the Taliban, and it is appropriate to continue to support forces that will not provide a nation-wide infrastructure for terrorists.
And it is simply true that Afghanistan is not Iraq. There is nothing contradictory about resisting the invasion of Iraq and supporting the war in Afghanistan. That was the position of most progressives from the beginning. Obama made it clear throughout the campaign that he considered Afghanistan a war of necessity, so why act like he's somehow betraying us now?
The U.S. and allies have made commitments to forces within Afghanistan that hold the only promise for a positive future there. A relatively stable, relatively democratic Afghanistan is in our vital national interests and in the interest of peace in the entire region. In general, nation-building is very problematic but there are cases where it is worth the attempt and I think this is one of them.
What an astonishing post. The lack of historical context is inexcusable. The Sandinista government of the 1980's was undermined by a U.S.-supported campaign of grotesque violence and contempt for law. Ortega's first election as president, in an election supported as valid and fair by international observers, was condemned by the Reagan administration, which then began a clearly illegal campaign, including a trade embargo (Cuba, anyone) against Nicaragua.
To address the politics of Nicaragua without reference to the very long history (back to the 1820's) of U.S. efforts to undermine democracy there and establish governments friendly to U.S. corporate interests is a sign of someone with a very dubious political agenda.
Charles Lemos has his nose well under the tent here at MYDD. I think his politics on international relations, especially in this hemisphere, are very questionable and possibly based on the very unusual history of Colombia. I suggest a vert healthy dose of skepticism in evaluating his posts.
I agree; It is foolish. I disagree that Gingrich and others pressed for impeachment of Clinton because he had an affair. You know as well as I do that the issue was Clinton lying under oath. I think impeachment was not appropriate but it does a disservice to misrepresent the facts.