Bricks in the Wall

A debate has ignited over Afghanistan, but unfortunately it was full of hot air. The true debate is already over. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Congress today that withdrawing isn't an option. A week after Joint Chief of Staff Mike Mullen called for a debate, he told Congress, "I certainly don't think it's time to leave. There's no way to defeat al-Qaeda, which is the mission, with just that approach - you can't do it remotely, you can't do it offshore."

"Remotely" means drones. The Pentagon - with its non-elected officials - is in total control of the US military.

Meanwhile the America media continues its propaganda assault against the American people. A rash of stories debating troop levels, if read closely, contain no troop figures. The American people only receive rhetoric. Arguments repetitiously approve the war, state how many troops America currently deploys, then abruptly end by approving the war without details. This phenomena is universal, as found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. These reports are a fraction of a fraction. The Christian Science Monitor came closer to revealing the charade, but eventually fell prey.

The American government, academia, and media seem to believe American citizens have no purpose in foreign policy and need no information. Are we supposed to believe President Obama doesn't know now, but will know in two weeks? Or does he really believe the last 6,000 of the 17,000 troops, to be deployed over the next months, will suffice? 6,000 isn't close to adequate, meaning he's stalling.

Evidence is surfacing that he's is overwhelmed, but the mistake is his because Afghanistan should've been his first priority. Then there's this man who fails to consider true military strategy in any way. Withdrawal may not be the solution, but such close mindedness isn't real strategy. America doesn't look like it's going to have a true debate on Afghanistan, a bad omen from President Obama. The deep will stay hungry.

Octopus Mountain stands by its assessment of 50,000 US troops. The NYT reported that General McChrystal is considering three options: "The smallest proposed reinforcement, from 10,000 to 15,000 troops, would be described as the high-risk option. A medium-risk option would involve sending about 25,000 more troops, and a low-risk option would call for sending about 45,000 troops." Following this logic, 50-60,000 troops would be their ideal choice.