Obama has undermined your prognostications by sending more troops into Afghanistan which will continue to be a vicious thorn in the side of the his administration. The surge in troops from the West will be countered by an equally large increase of willing forces on the side of the Taliban, recruited from neighbouring Pakistan. If anyone thinks that getting out of Iraq is difficult, they haven't a clue about getting done in Afghanistan.

Likewise, the new Knesset in Israel has moved to the right and it is less likely to agree to anything which smacks of a fair go for the Palestinians. After all, Israel is already a two state nation, one state in the Middle East and the other the state of New York. The city of New York has around one million inhabitants who claim Jewish heritage. Obama is going to have a hard task convincing these people that the displaced Palestinians should get any form of compensation for the lands which were stolen from them by the Zionists.

David

It is suggested that an Agenda for Obama should contain an extract of Immanual Kant’s Agenda for Perpetual Peace, published after Kant’s disappointment with Napoleon for forsaking the Libertinian principles that the young Napleon had earlier largely gained his military Honours for.

From this day on, quoted Kant, not one personage alone, nor even one personage alone representing the Good Lord, should ever be allowed to make final decisions ahead of what he called a Federation of libertinian nations to preserve Perpetual Peace.

Thus it was that the League of Nations was eventually founded, followed by the United Nations but both failing because of the very thing that Kant warned against, single party authority or virtually the same political behaviour, letting a single authority like an American President have the last say.

As any young political student is amazed at after leaning all the rudiments of true democracy, that the American Constitution similar to the archaic Britsh Law System still allows the elected leader to have the final say without the asking of the public ‘s consent as any decent democrat leader should.

Much of this was discussed so much during the Korean War with challenges against former war leaders like Macarthur having too much to say, when there should have been more consensus.

Certainly there was consensus even near the end of WW2 with the Bretton Woods Agreement, from where it is said that though he only was allowed to speak for Great Britain at the time, wonderful ideas such as the Marshal Plan where derived from suggestion s by an aging Maynard Keynes.

The end of the Cold War was attained also not so much by direct authority but much informal discussion, Reagan and Gorbachev virtually playing their parts but more as figureheads.

Not so with George W Bush, however thus any budding politician these days should only hope that Obama will have a good peruse at the US Constitution and have all ancient Absolutism concerning the President scrubbed out replaciing it with the wisdom and understanding that Immanuel Kant so much desired.

Regards, BB, WA.

Ismaeel says >> “Without a doubt, the era of George W. Bush will forever be symbolised by key failings in the Middle East. Bush’s track record left behind an uncertain region and no significant results, in spite of the democratic projects and peace roadmaps his administration tried so hard to implement.”

This is UTTER bullsh!t. Bush will be remembered as the man who helped bring democracy to the people of Iraq. Futhermore, the uncertainty of the region is not a new phenomenon. Attempting to lay the blame for it at Bush’s feet is totally unjustifiable.

Ismaeel says >> “Obama never supported the war from the outset, was against the troop surge in 2007, and pledged to withdraw troops within 16 months of taking oath.”

We should take note of these facts as he was wrong on nearly every occassion. Furthermore he is now implementing a surge of his own in Afghanistan. There is no greater flattery than immitation.

VK3AUU

You say >> “ ... Afghanistan ... will continue to be a vicious thorn in the side of the his administration. The surge in troops from the West will be countered by an equally large increase of willing forces on the side of the Taliban, recruited from neighbouring Pakistan. If anyone thinks that getting out of Iraq is difficult, they haven't a clue about getting done in Afghanistan.”

The doom and gloom merchants of the left were saying similar things about the surge in Iraq. At that time far more casualties were being inflicted in that war. Yet with a combination of grass roots diplomacy and military muscle the coalition had a big win in Iraq.

I suggest you read “One Soldiers War in Chechnya” or virtually any other modern Russian military history to see what comparisons you might find with the Western militaries. I would say there are almost NONE. The Russians experience of Afghanistan is largely irrelvant in any case. There are very few similarities. Nor is the British experience of the 19th century relevant. So I wonder how it is you know that this war is unwinnable?

TBC

CONT

Have a look at Ross Kemps “Return to Afghanistan”. He is a complete tosser, but to see the Afghan National Army in action with British forces it is clear they are committed to the destruction of the Taliban.

Until now Afghanistan has suffered from the lack of troops comitted to the conflict, with the spotlight on Iraq. If this changes, and those countries who do have troops there will allow them to fight, then there is every chance that the successes in Iraq can be repeated.

You say >> “After all, Israel is already a two state nation, one state in the Middle East and the other the state of New York”

This is absolute wankerism. Following your line of logic, Palestine is a 50 state nation.

You say >> “Obama is going to have a hard task convincing these people that the displaced Palestinians should get any form of compensation for the lands which were stolen from them by the Zionists.”

More utter nonsense. Is Israel to ask Hamas to stop shooting rockets at them so they aren’t killed when they turn up with these concessions? Hamas have so far shown ZERO interest in such questions as compensation. Why? Because they are intent on wiping out Israel, and they have allies in the region who aren’t far off being able to accomplish it.

The idea that Israel should be offering compensation whilst Hamas are trying their level best to kill as many Israelis as they can is simply astounding. Arafat was offered a good deal in 2000. But he wasn’t interested in making peace, no counter offer was made. Things have only become worse since then.

There is NO ONE for Israel to make peace with. All they can do is look after their short term security and hope that the Palestinians will realise they can't achieve their aims through violence.

We will just have to wait and see. In both Afghanistan and Israel, we have countries which are seen by their inhabitants, as having been invaded by either an American led alliance or an American supported entity respectively. In both cases they will continue their push to get rid of the invaders. There is no way that the hearts and minds of these people will be changed. In Israel, the conflict which is religiously based will go on to eternity. In Afghanistan, the West will ultimately find that the end is never in sight and they will withdraw as did the British and the Russians before them. They not only have to deal with the Taliban, but also with the warlords whose allegiances are to no one and certainly not to America.

Problems ahead for Obama

From A World of Trouble -by Patrick Tyler

American recklessness and missed chances in Middle East.

1. Promise of peaceful era when America replaced Britain in Middle East in 1950s.

2. Later the US would try to sort out the conflict between the Arab states and Israel.

3. Not beyond the capacity of a sensible super-power, but all attempts to solve conflicts failed, some very miserably.

4. Though Henry Kissinger appeared resolute when he argued against Nixon letting Israel go militarily atomic, he appeared too much unsure of himself later concerning the attitude of the Soviets.

5.. Though Tyler eppears disgusted with characters like Cheney and Rumsfeld he saves his toughest words for Presidents, especially George W Bush.

6. Though he does show some favour for Eisenhower, he slams him for allowing the colonialistic coup throwing out Mossadeq of Iran not long after WW2.

7. Tyler's catalogue of blame really begins with Lyndon Johnson for letting Israel get away with failing to return the territories it conquered during the Six-Day War.

But Tyler is hardest of all on Clinton, who seemed possibly too friendly and undecided, yet finally letting himself be manipulated by Netanyahu of Israel.

Incidently, Patrick Tyler like Ron Susskind and Bob Woodward partly works for the Washington Post.

Regards, BB, WA.