The wrong way to achieve political accommodation in Afghanistan (WashPost)

Washington Post ^ | August 21, 2013 | The Editorial Board

[Brad from Tennessee]

WHEN PRESIDENT Obama announced in 2011 the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq, he was sanguine about that nation’s future. U.S. soldiers could be “proud of their success,” he said, and he was “confident” that Iraqis would “build a future worthy of their history as a cradle of civilization.”

Today’s reality of civil war, humanitarian horror and political fracturing is at odds with Mr. Obama’s sunny predictions. So it is almost breathtaking that he remains committed to the same strategy, founded on the same debunked theory of human behavior, in Afghanistan.

The strategy is to pull out all U.S. troops. The theory, unlikely on its face and resoundingly disproven in Iraq, is that leaders will be more likely to make political compromises if they feel threatened and abandoned than if they feel secure. . .

[Brad from Tennessee]

The Post is actually blaming the collapse of Iraq on Obama's withdrawal of all U.S. troops.

[Understand the stimulus]

Comcast employees AL SHARPTON, allegedly pay his salary and benefits, to label and attack white police officers who kill a very small number of bad negroes...why the police and fire unions don’t demand their member cancel COMCAST SUBSCRIPTIONS until they stop employing Sharpton...no other employee of Comcast can get away with Sharpton’s antics...

[Ben Ficklin]

The WaPo editorial board is controlled by the NeoCons so they usually blame Obama.

Several media commentators have expressed the view that The Post's editorial position under Hiatt has moved towards a neoconservative position on foreign policy issues

[Vinnie]

Huh? Sharpton is employed by Comcast?

[Understand the stimulus]

they own nbc including Sharpton...its an alleged disgrace

[wildbill]

A strategy for peace in the Middle East should not depend on a Utopian view of human nature nor a predilection for believing that religious fanatics don’t mean to do exactly what they say whenever they can seize power.

I have no quarrel with isolationism per se, if that’s the way we want to go. But it should be a clearly stated policy and supported by the majority of our representatives and the people.

But there are two ways to implement isolationism. One is to simply build a wall at our own borders and let the rest of the world deal with international problems without us.

Another would be to extend the “wall” internationally in conjunction with allies and partners to isolate whatever states or ‘isms’ we don’t want to associate with. This ‘wall’ would include all forms of trade and communication on a wide basis—unless a limited thaw benefits us.

This is the classic ‘containment’ strategy of George Kennan that isolated communist nations after WWII that was followed by a bipartisan political consensus. You could say it worked pretty well over time since the Soviet Union imploded because of internal problems and the Chinese have come a long way towards an internally conceived revolution and rejection of Marxism.