Does the Obama administration understand why we invaded Afghanistan?  Does the Obama understand that we have no choice but to remain in Afghanistan until we can establish a stable government that will not allow the country to be a base for terrorism?

The Christian Science Monitor has reported that White House Chief of Staff  Rahm   Emanuel   told CNN it would  be "irresponsible" to send more troops into Afghanistan before the political situation is resolved.   Actually it would be irresponsible to wait for the political situation to be resolved before committing sufficient troops to stabilize the situation.

We invaded Afghanistan in 2001 because the Taliban government of Afghanistan had allowed the country to be used by a group of  al Qaeda terrorists who had attacked New York City and Washington, D.C., on September 11.  We cannot afford to leave until we can be assured that the country has a government that will not allow the country to be used to stage any more attacks against the U.S.

Emanuel said it would be "reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels if, in fact, you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether, in fact, there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the U.S. troops would create."

Does Emanuel understand  what  the impact of  Soviet rule followed by the rule of the Taliban?    Both governments followed policies of discouraging, and in some cases eliminating, those  who didn't blindly accept government orders.

The only people who had any experience operating a government were in the Taliban and they relied on terror to rule.  Time will be required to find and train honest individuals who will not abuse their government positions.  

Early volunteers for government service have often been dishonest, because dishonest people are more willing to take risks than honest people.  It will be difficult to attract honest people until  we can eliminate the violence that discourages them from getting involved.
 
If none of those who currently are interested in leading the government are capable of providing effective leadership, we will have to  look for  and  develop new leaders.   We may have to rebuild the country beginning at the local level.

Withdrawal before the country  has a viable anti-terrorist government is not an option.   Osama bin Laden would claim a major victory for violent Islam and use the victory to substantially increase recruitment.

Afghanistan is sometimes compared to my war [Vietnam] because it is a difficult place to defend against a guerrilla war.  However,  our adversaries in Vietnam never attacked  American cities or supported terror attacks on American cities.  Our adversaries in Afghanistan have attacked American cities before and want to use the country as a base for future terrorist attacks   against the United States and other countries.

We need to stay as long as it takes to prevent the country from once again becoming a base for terrorism even if that takes another 20 years.  We still have troops based in Germany and Japan 64 years  after we defeated them in World War II even though they are peaceful countries.

The recent editorial assaults on Rev. Jeremiah Wright amount to a virtual "lynching" of him.

Fifty years ago the southern white Democratic elite would have used the word "uppity" to describe an outspoken preacher like Rev. Wright. Today the predominently white elite that controls the national Democratic Party probably doesn't use the word, but the recent attacks against Rev.Wright indicates the elite may have the same attitude toward black preachers who disagree with the views of the elite.

When politicians associate with white preachers who make comments editors disagree with, the editors criticize the politicians. So why when a black preacher makes comments the editors disagree with, do the editors criticize the preacher?

The New York Times editor criticized Rev. Wright because "Mr. Wright" has "said the government manufactured the AIDS virus to kill blacks" and "he suggested that America was guilty of 'terrorism' and so had brought the 9/11 attacks on itself."

The Hutchinson News has said: "The Rev. Jeremiah Wright needs to shut up."

Religious leaders often explain calamities as punishment for immoral actions by government or society. Some U.S. government actions such as the bombing of the Chinese embassy during the Kosovo incident or supporting tyrants could be considering support for terrorism. Why should Rev. Wright be prohibited from making such statements?

I doubt that the government deliberately manufactured the HIV/AIDS virus, but I recognize that such an action could have occurred. Among the possibilities is that employees within the biological weapons research program might have released such a virus without authorization or by accident.

Those who attempt to censor someone for suggesting government might have done something wrong often do so to prevent discovery of the truth. If editors don't believe government created the HIV/AIDS virus, why are they afraid to have anyone mention the subject?

Former President Jimmy Carter was recently on the Tonight Show. Jay Leno mentioned that Carter's mother Lillian had occasionally made controversial statements. Would today's editors have told Lillian Carter to shut up or expected Jimmy Carter to rebuke his mother?

It's clear that the white elite that controls the Democratic Party believes that if Rev. Wright wants to ride on Barack Obama's bandwagon that Wright should stay in the background and keep quiet.

I'm not concerned about Barack Obama's pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright expressing views I disagree with. I am concerned about Obama's newspaper editors who feel it is part of their job to conduct character assassinations of people who might stand in the way in Obama's drive for power.

The idea that religious leaders should have to adjust their views to benefit politicians, especially someone wanting to be president, should scare anyone who believes that the state should not control the church.

  The editor of the Hutchinson, Kansas, News says "Rev. Jeremiah Wright needs to shut up"
 
Barack Obama's supporters in the media are piling on Rev. Wright for having the audacity to speak his mind and possibly harm their candidate's chances of being elected president.

Forgive my cynicism, but they are ignoring the fact that Obama made Wright a public figure by using Wright's church to try to convince black voters to vote for him. Politicians have been using church membership to win votes for generations.

I can understand criticizing Wright for his statements about government being responsible for the HIV virus, but why do some like the New York Times criticize him for his statement that the 9/11 attack was punishment for various American actions abroad which killed innocent civilians. Religious leaders have been blaming calamities on "sin" since biblical times.
 

I have read the sermon in question and see nothing wrong with it. As a social scientist I look at human actions in terms of direct cause and effect actions.

I would explain 9/11 in terms of the reaction of al Qaeda to having our troops stationed in their Holy Land and the failure of the FBI and CIA to do their jobs and prevent the attack. The FBI had a man in custody who wanted to learn how to fly planes but not how to land them, but no one at the FBI could foresee the obvious possibility that someone was planning to hijack a plane or planes and deliberately crash them. To me the 9/11 attack occurred because of incompetence at the FBI and CIA.

Preachers look at events from the view point of moral issues of right and wrong. Positive consequences are rewards for doing right. Negative consequences are the punishment for doing wrong. Like the prophets of biblical times Rev. Wright looked at the wrongs he felt America had done and suggested punishment was understandable.

Those who condemn Rev. Wright for his statement about 9/11 reveal themselves as anti religious bigots. They are the ones who should shut up.

I disagree with Rev. Jeremiah Wright on many things, but as an American I believe that he has the right to believe whatever he wants to believe and express those beliefs. 

My father believed the  rights of freedom of  belief and freedom of expression were important enough to risk his life in Europe  in World War II.  I believe those rights were important enough to risk my life in Vietnam.

I disagree with Rev. Wright that the U.S. government is responsible for the HIV virus, but as an historian I know that some of our ancestors  gave small pox infected blankets to the Indians.

America  has a long tradition of  belief in conspiracies.  Many believe there was some type of government involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the fall of the World Trade Towers.  I disagree with those theories but see nothing wrong with people wanting to have such beliefs.

Wright's statements about 9/11 being punishment are consistent with a long religious tradition dating from biblical times.  Religious leaders have often explained calamities as punishment for sins.  I disagreed with Rev. Martin Luther King's statements about the Vietnam War, but I recognized that  he had a duty to speak out  against what he believed to be wrong.

One of the functions of religious leaders is to condemn what they believe people or nations are doing wrong.   If we want to truly guarantee religious freedom,    we must allow them  to continue to do  so even if we disagree with them.  

If anyone is to blame in the controversy, it is Senator Barack Obama  not Rev. Jeremiah Wright.   No one held a gun to Obama's head and forced him to attend Rev. Wright's church for 20 years.  If Obama had serious disagreements with Rev. Wright, Obama should have left the church instead of belatedly condemning Rev. Wright for holding various beliefs.

Obama's behaviior is scary in someone who wants to be president.  Presidents can become intoxicated with the powers of the presidency.  A candidate who makes a practice of condemning those he disagrees with as a candidate might attempt to punish those who disagree with him if he's elected.

Rev. Wright's statements about HIV might not make sense to most of us, but many of those who are condemning him believe ideas that make even less sense. 

For example, many of them believe that carbon dioxide which is less than 0.04% of the atmosphere has some type of magical power to control the temperature of the atmosphere.  They believe  this even though the process they talk about is inconsistent with the laws of physics and with scientific experiments.   They claim the earth is getting significantly warmer, even though they admit that the average temperature they use changed by only 1F during the entire 20th Century and such change represents only a 0.17% increase in temperature.     Such a small change could  indicate nothing more than differences in equipment or differences  in the characteristics of the sites containing the equipment.