The dominant political assessment in the United States of the future of the Afghanistan war is undergoing a significant shift. The nature of the change is suggested by the contrast with the atmospherics of the presidential election campaign of 2008. At that time, a clear division emerged between the two candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, over attitudes to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The view of John McCain, the Republican Party candidate, was that the Iraq war was being won (the continuing violence there notwithstanding), in great part thanks to the military “surge” in American troop-numbers from 2007; and that in Afghanistan a similar strategy would lead to a comprehensive defeat of the Taliban. The political implication was that a McCain victory in the election would complete the triumph of the two wars begun by George W Bush, and regain the momentum needed to build the “new American century”.
The view of Barack Obama, the Democratic Party candidate, involved making a distinction between the two campaigns. Iraq was, in effect, the “bad war” - wrong in conception, disastrous in execution - which left the only honourable option a progressive US withdrawal within the first term of a new administration. Afghanistan was the “good war”, justified in its origin by the Taliban’s supporting role in the 9/11 attacks and demanding a continued commitment to see it through.
The time to leave
In the event, it was Barack Obama who had to carry the military responsibility of political victory. A few months into office, his administration was facing a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and - after a lengthy process of internal consultation - took the decision to expand the war, in two ways.
The first involved granting substantial additional assistance to the Pakistani army and its frontier-corps, which involved putting aside suspicions of a close connection between Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency and militant Islamists fighting against the US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan. The Obama administration also decided markedly to increase the use of armed-drones, especially in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) which straddle the Pakistan-Afghanistan border (see "Washington vs Waziristan: the far enemy", 14 May 2010).
The second element of the war's expansion was a massive surge in US forces in Afghanistan. This was the policy advocated by John McCain, though Obama gave it a subtle yet profound twist: for the purpose of the extra forces was not to seek outright victory but to force the Taliban to the negotiating table.
An issue that has been central to the Obama administration’s evolving calculations regarding Afghanistan is that of the timescale - of victory, negotiation, or withdrawal. In this respect there has been a striking change since 2007, when an assessment circulating both in Washington and London was that the western military coalition might need to maintain a major military presence in Afghanistan until around 2017-22. The expectation was that an extended if low-level insurgency would have to be patiently countered before stability was achieved.
Three years on, the schedule for the foreign forces is looking much more short-term. The Dutch and Canadian contingents will be withdrawn in 2010-11 after a decision by their respective governments. Now, Britain’s prime minister David Cameron has in quick succession talked of an evacuation of British forces by 2015, then by 2014, and then of troop withdrawals beginning in 2011; and the mood-music for the drawdown of the US’s very much larger force is beginning to sound similar (see David E Sanger, "Afghan deadline is cutting two ways", New York Times, 21 July 2010).
The accelerating trend towards military withdrawal is reflected in the the announcement made at the international summit in Kabul on 20 July 2010 that the coalition forces plan to transfer complete responsibility for security and budgeting to the Afghan government by 2014 (see Alissa J. Rubin et al, “Leaders Renew Vows of Support for Afghanistan”, New York Times, 21 July 2010).
The United States military could continue to maintain its three large bases in Afghanistan (at Bagram, Kandahar and Herat) as well as at other locations in central Asia. It is still possible too that there will be some negotiations with the Taliban in the next three years to finesse the larger withdrawal (though this is far from certain, given the movement’s current position of strength; more likely is that the Taliban will wait to take over Kandahar, Helmand and other southern provinces and then decide whether to settle for a weak coalition in a devolved government, or seek greater control across the country). In any event, the implication of the coalition’s new “timetabling” considerations is that the Afghanistan war is going to be brought to an end, come what may.
The forgotten conflict
The developing stance of the United States and its allies in Afghanistan is echoed by developments in Iraq. The US forces withdrew from Iraqi cities on 30 June 2009 and handed over authority for security to the Iraqi authorities; in the country as a whole, their numbers have been reduced from almost 200,000 in 2007 to below 100,000 today.
The situation in Iraq now attracts far less western media attention, major incidents apart, than hitherto; but the country is anything but peaceful (see Patrick Cockburn, “America lowers the flag: Iraq's unquiet peace”, Independent, 19 July 2010). Around 100 people are dying in Iraq and hundreds more are being seriously injured each week (despite the around 1,500 checkpoints around Baghdad which restrict movement across the city); very few of the nearly 4 million Iraqis displaced by the war (including the 1 million-plus refugees) have been able to return home; and after the elections of March 2010, a new government has still not been formed.
These current realities offer no reason to challenge the assessment that the invasion and occupation of Iraq were a disaster from the beginning. The trends of war in Afghanistan mean that the coalition forces more and more resemble their Red Army predecessors in 1988, when Mikhail Gorbachev’s government in Moscow was beginning to plan for withdrawal.
The third war
The damage presented by Afghanistan and Iraq, considered together or separately, to the Barack Obama administration could yet be containable in narrow political terms. But what could present it with the most acute difficulty is the emergence of a third theatre of war, over Iran and its presumed nuclear ambitions. Obama himself might want to avoid the United States become embroiled in any such conflict, but he is now under severe domestic political pressure as the mid-term congressional elections in November 2010 approach; and Republican circles are increasingly promoting the notion that the US should seek a military solution to the Iran problem - or at least encourage the Israelis to do so (see “Israel vs Iran: fallout of a war”, 15 July 2010).
The idea that an attack on Iran is desirable is found most regularly in neo-conservative circles (see Reuel Marc Gerecht, “Should Israel Bomb Iran: Better Safe than Sorry”, Weekly Standard, 26 July 2010). But arguments for the military option are also found in more centrist military and diplomatic thinking, as portrayed by the well-informed Joe Klein (see “An Attack on Iran: Back on the Table”, Time, 15 July 2010). Meanwhile, an experienced former US ambassador to Israel, Dan Kurzer, takes the view that Israel is more likely to start a conflict with Hizbollah than the other way round (see Jim Lobe, “Israel's Next War Could Be Lebanon”, TerraViva/IPS, 20 July 2010).
The prospect here is of a drift towards war with Iran that could entangle the Barack Obama administration. A war is not inevitable, but a situation of escalating tension means that it could be triggered by accident, misjudgment, or inadvertence - perhaps after an incident in the Persian gulf or on the Israel-Lebanon border.
If the decade’s third major war does erupt over Iran in 2010-11, this will be a yet further victory for the “control paradigm” that has brought so much suffering, anguish and conflict since 9/11 (see "America and the world's jungle", 27 May 2010). The effects will be so calamitous that a move away from this model and towards a more enlightened outlook rooted in the idea of “sustainable security” will become conceivable only much later in the 2010s. But if war with Iran can be avoided over the next eighteen months, and if Barack Obama is re-elected in November 2012, the possibility of a progressive United States security strategy might - just - remain alive. The stakes could scarcely be higher.
Comments
You are a writer to be proud of! Your foresight is a 'match' with reasonable elements of truth characteristic of many of the analyses and wake-up calls in papers you write for oD. "Proof" is not lacking that you work for needed sensitivity and peace in a highly informed and objective manner.
It can be conjectured that the meaning is "Obama should not fail", while the Republican party is selling itself in ways insensitively regretable, which if the public [voters] truly understand may cost them even in the forthcoming election! They have recently stiffled legislation chances in the Congress on environmental policy risks and need to control emissions - no good omen, if unregulated strife for growth and money leaves citizens vulnerable to the extent that they live not to enjoy.
Who are those to map-out 'risk scenarios' for both political parties, among others on: Afghanistan, Iraq.....Iran? Can they be cautious: not complacent by underestimating the consequences of wars in the region or can they still afford to proudly hence, blindly refuse to re-think the history of key lessons available to them?
In Afghanistan, unlike the view of the Senator: "you do not go our telling the enemy when you 'vacate' the war scene" - is short of the comprehensive perspectives that should have guided its uttering. If one of the world's most prestigeous organs - the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, had the foresight to believe in the President on peace moves, it is not too hard or complex to understand and assume "tactical openness" [of criticized timing]: arm of an encouragement - absolutely impossible to ignore. The "executed" Iraqi head of state was obviously not the best of leaders, at the same time poor (intelligence) estimates, in spite of experts and international suggestions for other options, turned-out the outcomes of war generals, with Iraq more susceptible to the chaos seen. It was so badly done that, not even the new President's strategy, makes Iraqis safer and their democracy to show the willingness to pragmatically welcome new compromise, footed in wisdom of government of national unity - no convincing example for Afghanistan: a frighteningly risky case! How are lessons shaped, interpreted and used to guide future policies tied to religious, ethnic, regional, hence an 'enriched' appreciation for 'careless' risks estimates burried in a one-sided definition of political realities? - a rather important question to ask!
Sources cited in the paper should be treasured for lessons and definitions. Rogers' construct: control paradigm, not altogether new has shown-up in analyses interpreting certain historical events in the world. It was relatively open and generalist in East-West political, economic and social studies and most ensuing arguments. Present-day risks estimates, unfortunately, appear not to be truly recognizant hence, work to upgrade trusts and make diplomacy and development smoother. In economic challenging times like the one seen, dotted with wars - in most cases meaningless], adversarial national party politics is of no help - rather an ill-wind! Many do not stop to ask if such an ill-wind is really worth it or blows anyone good?
To the humble and concerned, rumours that the Middle East can be on fire in case of war with Iran, is nothing to joke with. America and allies have their wings spread here and there: overstretched in many real senses - not excluding planned military exercises in Korean penisular. Should it come to it, will they be able to cope - among others morally? Here, estimates seem to underrate realities and ambiguities of frustration-aggression: a key pillar in western psychology and social psychology theories. The dirt in Afghanistan: the region as a whole, no matter the clear military superiority of the US and allies, hardly convincingly means they can go all out without restraints. Restraints surely presuppose constraints and reason to care about risks estimates: suggesting more human not technical commitment.
If adversarial party politics leads to bind the hands of a popularly elected president on severely intricate and, in most cases clearly dangerous policy and diplomatic questions, the truth and idea of collective responsibility has to be re-evaluated. Before President Obama assumed leadership, we saw conflicts on the front of trust for democracy and democratisation. We saw how corrupt regimes posed as democratic ones - balancing the show to slip in as democracies. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty was no less subject to the same strategy: countries play games, balancing themselves in many senses - including energy drives to win favour and set-up plants.
Obama came in, intriguingly assessed the situation and went all out on anti-proliferation treaty: trying to make best of the situation, unfortunately at a time things have already "slipped" away. In holy or unholy ways, nuclear plants, like crazy drives for money - ruining world economy now, was very discretely promoted as invincible symbol of military power. How are we to retreat: get out of it all, if we continue with dirty politics?
Don't we have eyes and conscience to see what we have done to have the courage to retrace steps - knowing wars might plunch all into unthinkable chaos. China is a now a "friend" of the West, and with good diplomacy North Korea is reachable, with more 'tolerant' government in the South. In a similar guesture, Iran too is reachable, in spite of the Islamic contents and shape of its government and leaders: appreciating the fact that opposition is also working. It is a matter of political cleanliness and less conflicting efforts to understand and work-out the strategy to contain things peacefully. For the US and allies, whether we focus on Afghanistan, Middles East or Korea or not, there is always the "regional policy dimension" to argue for frank, and if I am permitted to solicit a soft public diplomacy. Israel has to know that she has friends and war is definitely no option. It is a difficult policy debate but we must face it in the interest of peace as we struggle genuinely to re-shape the contents of sustainable security. Afghanistan's recent conference was necessary and for what we learn in brief "war is no good", so the will and power as well as superior knowledge at disposal must be re-channelled for peace and progress for all. Rogers, your good article is a source of inspiration and I hope allies and President Obama stand to benefit!
I have a very jaundiced view of recent conflicts. They are created to avoid citizens thinking about the injustices at home.
For me, personnaly, my war on the 'University of Luton' is more important than the other conflicts - it affects my life much more.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of citizens have, like me, their own adgenda.
Alfred
Why can't we say the word which is "fiasco"- an utter failure or breakdown, which is what both the Iraq and Afghan invasions are ( they are not wars in the true sense). Nor can we utter the word "insane" which is what an attack on Iran would be. The US and NATO have painted themselves into a corner with the blood of thousands on their hands and their continued delusional behavior is utterly reprehensible.
What can we expect when corporations and their political lackeys remain in charge of world economic and military power. Will this change when western dominance is swept away? Unlikely.
Although it is rather interesting reading Paul’s article, I can only agree with Alfred. This is exactly what I said to my sister a few days ago. Rather than being offended by faraway problems in the Middle East without notable solutions, why do not you try resolving local problems at your disposal such as family breakdown.
I always thought if only people were more focus on their own family, maybe violence of which war is the ultimate sophisticated tool would then be reduced and, consequently, war may become obsolete.
Or If only I could create a machine where I can put some people such as Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, Netanyahu, Nasrallah and many others, as to change their personality into someone like Nelson Mandela, maybe I could save the world from destruction. Well! I am dreaming...
If the war starts in August 2011, then the butterfly will begin its journey unless the ‘control paradigm’ is a myth.
Aphoristic comments have their uses, but lessons have to be carefully distilled. Just can't think of what 'own family' means in contemporary times: not when all socialization agents are put to place in making the man and his society/world. Happy that Africa offers a model while a parliament 'attendant' on the fate of Dr Verwoed remains a myth of justice and rebirth on the way to the model: a paradox for a better lesson? Dreams are not 'bad' if they serve possibly all mankind, but we must take the time to study and evaluate. Adolf Hitler's dream was surely bad.
Iraq is a violent society and always has been. '
'The situation in Iraq now attracts far less western media attention, major incidents apart, than hitherto; but the country is anything but peaceful (see Patrick Cockburn, “America lowers the flag: Iraq's unquiet peace”, Independent, 19 July 2010). Around 100 people are dying in Iraq and hundreds more are being seriously injured each week (despite the around 1,500 checkpoints around Baghdad which restrict movement across the city); very few of the nearly 4 million Iraqis displaced by the war (including the 1 million-plus refugees) have been able to return home; and after the elections of March 2010, a new government has still not been formed.'
Paul Rogers is right but only up to a point. The point he misses is that a new government will be formed, quite possibly by Allawi. That will be a testament to Iraq's forming democracy. Which the majority of its people seem to support. Much work to be done but there is progress at hand. The situation is quite different from the one in Iraq during 2006-2007. At the risk of sounding overly optimistic, Iraq could work. I am not so hopeful concerning Afghanistan. I have worked for over five years in Iraq and met Paul Rogers in person, his analysis is sound but slightly off key with regards to Iraq in this instance.
NATO: Whoring itself to American Imperialism
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded for the best of motives. It came into being in 1949 as a European/North American defense alliance to thwart any intention the former USSR might have of attacking the countries of Western Europe. The dominate partner in the Alliance was then and is even more so today the US. As the world’s singular surviving superpower it has gone from dominating the alliance to coercing it into becoming an instrument of US foreign policy and its imperial ambitions.
When the Cold War ended with the implosion of the USSR in 1985 there was no apparent need for NATO. For both America and the NATO countries there was a peace dividend to be harvested.
The dividend was never to be collected as militarism had a momentum of its own. Where one daunting enemy ceased to exist new enemies had to be manufactured to justify a swaggering and out of control addiction to militarism.
For America’s neoconservatives this was the dawning of a new era where the US would use its vast military capability to pursue Full Spectrum Dominance as delineated in the PNAC(Program of the New American Century.) Though their lofty ambitions were thwarted for eight years by the tenure of the Clinton Democrats the election of Republican George W Bush in 2001was their window of opportunity to act. All too conveniently, the September 11 attack on the WTC followed soon after, allowing these very ambitious conservatives “The new Pearl Harbor” they needed to justify their nefarious agenda.
NATO dovetailed nicely into this plan as it would stealthily be mutated from a defense alliance to an instrument of American imperialism. NATO was expanded to include former Soviet satellites for the purpose of advancing American hegemony to the very door step of Russia- still cast as villainous enemy.
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while touted as wars of liberation, are really wars of strategic positioning. The US set out to control the politics and resources of the Middle East and Central Asia, as well as containment of Russia and China. Iraq and Afghanistan are mere stepping stones to a larger agenda and they have suffered grievously under the jackboots of American imperialism.
The real “sin” of Iran is that it is a regional power that impedes America’s imperial ambitions. Its repeated and compulsive vilification has the stench of just one more deception.
Where the US claims its presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is only temporary the massive infrastructures established in these countries in the form of military bases belies this claim. They are not dispensing “Enduring Freedom” but an enduring presence and Afghanistan and Iraq are only the most recent franchises in a global network of over 700 US military bases.
Imperialism is a very expensive game and has left America the most indebted country in the world. It is fighting foreign wars with borrowed money on borrowed time. It then becomes necessary to defray the costs of this cretinous extravagance by coercing allies, namely NATO, into being the whores of US imperialism all too willing to cough up cash and lives in a sorely corrupted cause for despicable motives.
In this age of denialism and willful ignorance it is beyond the comprehension of most that terrorism is mostly no more than a byproduct of US imperialism.
Equally obnoxious is the fatuous notion the US must guard its national security globally. This is no more than a transparent ruse to justify these imperial ambitions yet it floods the air waves unchallenged.
The G12, the G20, like NATO are mere tea parties of failed intentions. Until some real statesmen arrive on the scene a critical situation only becomes worse.
Many commentators are saying the Afghanistan war is lost. Failed strategies, corruption, false purpose have taken their toll. There will be the usual body counts but the devastation will spiral on: a disgraced NATO, damaged and destroyed economies and political casualties disgraced by their failed leadership and pathetic acquiescence.
the reason of these wars on the middle east is energy(petrol) it is understood that the dominant has one position and the dominated another. however why will America will not succeed on the MD adventure, has nothing to do with arms and technology but simply equilibrium. the American dream cannot upset the global equilibrium, because it is not Washington that decides but events and its aftermath. Iraq might be something completely different in a few years even month. putting all the American domination on the bin, and a new dictatorship in place. Iran could win the war and might even develop radioactive Kamikazes, blowing themselves up and polluting the environment. so far the dominant empire has gain nothing, industrialism has destroyed the planed, there is no clean water any-ware, pharmaceutical companies develop products that later on become hazardous. nuclear energy create nuclear waste, the collide in Switzerland creates havoc as it generates electromagnetic waves similar to the suns spots. in the end the culture that we all glorified so mush call the western industrialist culture is destroying the planet. in this context the talibans are saints as their backward ideas will impose a very primitive way of existence but them they will save us all from the predetermined destruction we have created ourselves. nuclear Iran is no different than nuclear Israel, Pakistan, France or china. therefore the problem is nuclear as a whole not a nation. the main media is no longer credible and the road to a max max realm is closer than everyone thinks. in short a complete confuse world is on the edge of becoming reality and all this thanks to industrial capitalism and its idea of democracy and freedom, which will in the end kill us all. the problem is in fact a civilization that no longer makes sense and a logic that is obsolete.
a change certainly will take place hopefully we will survive it.
We may think and work positively and yet at the present rate, it sounds not so completely wise to dismiss sentiments!
It is time to rally round the political reforms ongoing here and there. We might realise things late and act slowly, at the same time the count-down has begun thanks to President Obama - even if the way is winding and still long!
An interesting article, which raises serious issues. However, there are other issues that might require attention as well. Obama, much loved of the liberal press has so far failed to reveal his leadership that was to bring hope to the American people. McCain on the other hand didn't promise that. However, it would be naive to dismiss Obama's role as irrelevant as he with the help of the neo-con right wingers rachetting up the rhetoric are slowly but surely leading the USA into the final slope downhill that all empires take before becoming relatively irrelevant on the international stage. It will of course take some time but then that is what we thought of the USSR and the Warsaw pact.
As regards to the region it is already sufficiently unstable and any false move and anyone who blinks has the potential of unleashing not conflicts but a war that has the potential of spreading and engulfing the world. China and India have their own ambitions as does Russia and they might not necessarily be aligned to those of the US or indeed of its allies. However, by focusing constantly on the war as merely an issue of when will the US or the UK withdraw their troops fails to take into account the reality on the ground. I suspect that from an Afghan, Iranian, Iraqi or Pakistani point of view things might appear different. The US might consider itself as a supporter of democracy and human rights but that might be far from the truth and perhaps further away from what locals in the region think of them. The illiterate, uneducated people lacking sophistication might be many things but perhaps nevertheless able to remember that The Shah of Iran was a product of the West supported by the West, that Iraq was created by Britain and the Kings and later Saddam was actively supported by the US and the UK who provided billions of dollars worth of military hardware during the iran-iraq war, that the military dictators of Pakistan were supported by the West as were corrupt democratic regimes, that the Arab rich states of the Gulf and Saudi Arabia were in part created supported and maintained by the US and the UK and to a certain extent still are, one could go on. Few shall lament the demise of the US as few did the demise of the British Empire. If the US and the UK wish to gain something from these unfortunate campaigns it would be time for them to take a look inwards and see how their own hypocrisy, corruption and greed was the cause of bloodshed of people from within their own countries and beyond.
Israel...threatened by a nuclear Iran...?
Since Iran is a nuclear state, but not a nuclear bomb state like the State of Israel, then they are a threat to Israel. Israel has 200 nuclear bombs. Iran has zero.
However, many nations including Germany, Japan, Brazil, and Iran are among the many nuclear states...NOT a Nuclear Bomb State. All these nuclear states have active nuclear fuel cycle, i.e. they are able to produce fuel for nuclear power reactor for generation of electricity.
A logical follow up, only the following states are nuclear bomb states: USA, Russia, England, France, China, Pakistan and India. The North Korea tested a very crude bomb a year ago, but she is incapable to deliver it as nuclear bomb either by plane or rocket.
Facts: Israel has 3 nuclear submarines, donated by Germany, capable to carry nuclear bombs. USA has provided Israel planes capable to carry nuclear bombs. Israel has nuclear bombs.
What is wrong with us? Black is white & good is bad: Israel an aggressive state who has attacked her neighbors and occupied their territories is good! Why does Israel feel threatened by Iran? US Secretary of State Clinton boldly announced that USA will nuclear bomb Iran into oblivion if she attacks Israel? USA already has been treating Israel as an honorary member of the Common Wealth of the United States.
A common explanation often offered has been psychological syndrome. A cure for this behavior cannot be another war instigated on behalf of Israel, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and now Iran.
"No contradictions in spite of my earlier comments!"
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
Empire building has its problem, and history obviously tells that. No sufficient ground for (mis)understanding the expression "count-down"! We all have our reservations about democracy and for that reason, the right to offer one or the other view. All in all, it is the freedom to offer that view that is so important for us, to the point that we have to value it. If we appreciate democracy for this and other reasons it is also likely that "pragmatism" will be meaningful to us and to the politics we drive and our future chances to survive together.
'Democracy', reduced to pragmatism should therefore mean that we can talk and act in those ways diffusing conflicts and curing hate, no-matter our interpretation of the pains of history. It means we can debate, use positive diplomacy, put-off our fears and suspicion, love and work together for the quality of results we all want, e.g., to live, to progress and curb the chances of crashing down as we count-down, because of the lessons of our mistakes, which is the platform for the ideals and will to reform. Doom-days' sentiment is a key part of us, and yet the grace to overcome is within us.
Why don't we then democratize with that grace, rather than sit fast in our positions? Ask me and I will tell you that it is hard, especially in political contexts - the reason why our words and comments need to be encouraging, well spirited and conscious of peaceful co-existence. It is sound to stand up for the current US administration, if your lenses allow you to see, compare and evaluate! My notion of count-down stems from a seventh-sense penetration and is for the hope and trust we all want or blame to have been over-sighted in the past. SO WHY DON'T WE JUST TEAM-UP AND CALL IT A PERIOD? HELP AFGHAN WAR/CONFLICTS TO END!
Post new comment