Home | About | Donate

Fueling 'Perpetual War,' Trump to Send 4,000 Troops to Afghanistan


Fueling 'Perpetual War,' Trump to Send 4,000 Troops to Afghanistan

Jake Johnson, staff writer

In a move signaling marked escalation of a war that has spanned nearly 16 years, a Trump administration official told the Associated Press on Thursday that an additional 4,000 troops will be sent to Afghanistan. An official announcement is expected to come next week.

"War fought without oversight is war without end."
—Dan Feehan, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense


The left needs to step up and openly declare "Out NOW!". I'm sick and tired of the arguments about the already needlessly killed "having died in vain" if we quit and go home. This is just a slow motion Vietnam. Whenever we leave the Taliban will take back over. It's their country, they will wait us out. As much as it hurts their women, you can't force Western-style democracy on a people who don't want it. It's been tried and failed before. We don't learn. So get out and quit our full employment policy for the weapons industry.


Since when did we ever go into another country to spread democracy? Isn't this about pipelines, resources, M-E hegemony, establishing a puppet state to further weaken Russia?

PS - if it were really about "Spreading Democracy," then one has to wonder: How do we spread something that we, ourselves, don't even have?


Another 4,000 men after 16 years? Does anybody ask for a justifiable explanation? What is the military reason (if any) that these men are being sent just now?

What is the reason men must die,
when there is no reason,
except that a king says why? - Wereflea

Mueller investigates and Trump throws men's lives into the pit as a distraction.


I thought hindsight was 20/20 ? Someone seems to have forgotten how Russia went belly up in its long war in Afghanistan vicariously (or not so )with the US. Russia is quite pleased with the situation , with us continuing to liquidate our resources monetary and physical ,on the "endless wars " So sad


In today's lesson we are going to review what we have learned about the nature of the perversion of the "art" of war. More specifically, to what extent do intervening countries create and nurture a vicious cycle of seemingly self-perpetuating circumstances, which they then use as the sophomoric and specious justifications for unduly prolonged military campaigns?

"Okay class, now, repeat after me, ‘If you don't know history, then...’"

It seems as if the United States (and its usual allies) has adopted a game-plan that calls for perpetual wars. The current focus is on the Mid East. However, there are many other areas that are prime candidates for U.S. invasion or intervention. All it takes is the invocation of fear/terror, as well as mass media’s devout compliance—in incessantly beating the war drums.

I think they took the recent myriad wars straight out of “1984,” by George Orwell. In that book, there were constant news reports about some perpetual war, being waged on the periphery or borders of the civilized world. The reports were usually of "near victory," but never any real substantial gains.

On June 28, 2010, an AP article quoted then-CIA director Leon Panetta, "We're seeing elements of progress, but this is going to be tough.” That article read, “Panetta estimated there are fewer than 100 al-Qaida militants operating inside Afghanistan, with the rest hiding along Pakistan's mountainous western border.” When asked about the Taliban, he said, “There is progress—even if it's slower than I think anyone anticipated."

On July 25, 2010, an article read, “More NATO troops will die in Afghanistan as violence mounts over the summer, but Washington's goal of turning the tide against the [Taliban] insurgency by year's end is within reach, the top U.S. military officer said.”

Back then, I recalled many an article with a title similar to, "Al Qaeda's network has been 'severely degraded' by joint U.S.-Pakistani efforts".

Yeah right… It is just like I constantly read about the al-Qaeda's ”Number-3 man” being killed. He's replaced. Then, the next “Number-3 man” is killed. Of course, he’s replaced. Then… ad nauseam.

These war-on -terror news reports will "see-saw"—up and down, back and forth—into public consciousness for the next 50 years. The U.S. news media will mostly be reporting the military’s achievement of some sort of progress or near victory—punctuated by occasional setbacks. However, most of those military campaigns will never accomplish anything really definitive. Certainly, there will be no actual victory or “mission accomplished,” as the United States plans to engage in perpetual wars in that region.

Recently the West has embarked on ambitious campaigns of active combat engagement in several other Mid-East countries, from Libya, to Syria and Yemen. All the while—predictably— it is still stuck in the quagmires of Afghanistan and Iraq. Certain military strategists shocked many onlookers, when they suggested that the United States partner with certain elements of al-Qaida in order to achieve geo-political goals of the West.

And since then, for the sake of propaganda branding and stoking seemingly everlasting tension and fear, al-Qaida has almost magically morphed into various incarnations/factions. There are the so-called moderate rebels and then there is ISIS. Oops! The West's coalition has largely re-branded it as "Daesh." (Nice marketing gimmick, eh?)

Curiously enough, those relatively recently re-named (i.e., re-branded) forces mysteriously obtain training, logistics, funding, transport and supplies (i.e., from Iraq and Libya); certain of those ragtag forces are imported into different countries to create “boogeymen,” so as to justify interventions on the scale which serve to further the geo-political agenda of the global power-elite. (It is no surprise that many of those recruits "defect" to the "enemy," along with their newly acquired training, weapons and supplies. Nice!)

So, be prepared next week for an article to read, "ISIS' network has 'gained substantial strength' DESPITE joint U.S.-[Insert name of coalition-force du-jour here] efforts".

Hmmm... It begs the question, "Why didn't the coalitions of the West learn their lesson from the former Soviet Union?" For, it also got bogged down in an Afghanistan quagmire. Truth be told, the powers-that-be—in their "infinite wisdom"— always knew that such wars would drag on and on and on... But then again, the military-security-industrial complex does seem to have an insatiable appetite.


Hello Jake Johnson and Everyone, Nothing like putting more cannon fodder into the maw of endless war for endless peace. The end result will be more death, more mentally and physically injured troops, not to mention the citizens of Afghanistan, and the MIC getting greedier and increasing their wealth at our expense!!!!!!!!!


Time to fuel 'Perpetual Anti-War' movement everywhere.

Give Peace A Chance!


Obama thought Afghanistan was the "good war". Trump rails against all things Obama. I guess that we have identified war as the immunity idol in this sickening reality show pervading every frickin' channel.


"Congress must reopen the debate on the [Authorization for Use of Military Force]."

If anyone is expecting the Democrats to reopen this debate or criticize Trump on this, good luck. If anything, the Democrats will likely praise Trump for acting "presidential" - once again. The notion of Congress providing oversight on anything is laughable. Congress is incapable of providing oversight on itself, let alone something as serious as war.


"We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for our soldiers must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle in the mid-east, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor."


Well, they at least say it is...


Don't think that there's any evidence that the US presence in Afghanistan
has anything to do with democracy -- and certainly not with protecting women there.

What all of this is about is empire, control over oil -- war profits, drug running, arms running.

Using fake "terrorism" which the US itself is creating as an excuse for war; creating new
refugees and making families and children more vulnerable everywhere for exploitation.

The left is very clear that it is anti-war (84%) and anti-MIC and the message has certainly been heard
by the Dem Party if that's who you mean. Internationally, anti-war sentiments are even higher.
Rahm Emmanuel, actually, confirmed getting that message as he blasted liberal Democrats who would
actually get rid of the MIC.


I agree, but we need not repeat it, for it is a lie. It gives credence that our intentions are somewhat noble. They're not.


Perpetual war is always good for the bottom line of all corporations (Boeing, Bechtel, Halliburton, Raytheon, Blackwater, Martin-Marrietta, Northup-Grummnan, Texas Instruments, BP and other fuel/oil vendors, etc.) contributing to and benefiting from the ever-increasing and financially bloated MIC. Focus on huge military spending toppled the Soviet Union from the inside yet the US continues to pursue a like path. Isn't this DJT fulfilling his promise to make amerika great/amazing/tremendous agin'?

Besides, Mad Dog is a career Marine, which speaks volumes about where his interests lie...nothing like the smell of napalm and burning flesh first thing in the morning...spit and polish and lots more medals with raises to add to the retirement fund.


Did they plant more Opium laden Poppy fields which need protection from the Taliban?


"He just wants peace."--multiple "progressives" here at CD, circa 2016

Goes with

"He's better on trade and healthcare."-also multiple "progressives" here at CD, circa 2016


There is no "left".

There is a pretend left that is allowed to opperate within narrow parameters. Any further left than that and their voices will never be heard.


there was a time when we stood up to the warmongers and war profiteers. the mobilizations of the 60's-70's. I went to dc with a small group in 1969. there were snipers on the rooftops. 4 others made the ultimate sacrifice at kent state the following spring. the mf'ers got the message loud and long and clear.
the current military adventures are far more egregious than viet nam as they began with the blatant lies of the bush team of war criminals. i'm 68 now and still willing to go to dc. seems people are more interested in the kardashians these days than PEACE:slightly_smiling_face:


It is my understanding that for some time now the majority of US the forces in military operations have been contractors and mercentaries, not formal troops, as referred to in the troops numbers. News rarely reflects that. These entities operate without the benefits of soldiers, may not appear on victim lists, and operate fearlessly and amazingly outside the rule of America can military law. I first read about this many years ago in an atimes article on contractor's sex slaves in Afghanistan. I found another example of it at a college job fair a few years back where most of the employers were military, over half of which was contractors.. Am I wrong? Who is in body counts?