This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
A Cheaper and More Effective Military Strategy for Afghanistan
Supporters of an escalation of the Afghanistan war often ask that we give military options a chance. They also respond to criticism of the surge by asking "okay smart guy, what would YOU do to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?" Several pro-war posters also asked that pro-military arguments be given a chance.
Well, initially, the U.S. admits there are only a small handful of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. As ABC notes:
U.S. intelligence officials have concluded there are only about 100 al Qaeda fighters in the entire country.
With
100,000 troops in Afghanistan at an estimated yearly cost of $30
billion, it means that for every one al Qaeda fighter, the U.S. will
commit 1,000 troops and $300 million a year.
There are
probably more than 100 homicidal maniacs in any large American city.
But we wouldn't send soldiers into the city to get those bad guys.
Indeed, a leading advisor to the U.S. military - the very hawkish Rand Corporation - released a study
in 2008 called "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al
Qa'ida". The report confirms what experts have been saying for years:
the war on terror is actually weakening national security.
As a press release about the study states:
Terrorists
should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and
our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to
terrorism.
There are additional reasons why prolonging the Afghan war may reduce our national security, such as weakening our economy.
But if you want a military solution anyway, Andrew J. Bacevich has an answer.
Bacevich
is no dove. Graduating from West Point in 1969, he served in the United
States Army during the Vietnam War. He then held posts in Germany,
including the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, the United States, and the
Persian Gulf up to his retirement from the service with the rank of
Colonel in the early 1990s. Bacevich holds a Ph.D. in American
Diplomatic History from Princeton University, and taught at West Point
and Johns Hopkins University prior to joining the faculty at Boston
University in 1998. Bacevich's is a military family. On May 13, 2007,
Bacevich's son, was killed in action while serving in Iraq.
Last year, Bacevich wrote in an article in Newsweek:
Meanwhile,
the chief effect of allied military operations there so far has been
not to defeat the radical Islamists but to push them across the
Pakistani border. As a result, efforts to stabilize Afghanistan are
contributing to the destabilization of Pakistan, with potentially
devastating implications. September's bombing of the Marriott hotel in
Islamabad suggests that the extremists are growing emboldened. Today
and for the foreseeable future, no country poses a greater potential
threat to U.S. national security than does Pakistan. To risk the
stability of that nuclear-armed state in the vain hope of salvaging
Afghanistan would be a terrible mistake.All this means that the
proper U.S. priority for Afghanistan should be not to try harder but to
change course. The war in Afghanistan (like the Iraq War) won't be won
militarily. It can be settled—however imperfectly—only through politics.The
new U.S. president needs to realize that America's real political
objective in Afghanistan is actually quite modest: to ensure that
terrorist groups like Al Qaeda can't use it as a safe haven for
launching attacks against the West. Accomplishing that won't require
creating a modern, cohesive nation-state. U.S. officials tend to assume
that power in Afghanistan ought to be exercised from Kabul. Yet the
real influence in Afghanistan has traditionally rested with tribal
leaders and warlords. Rather than challenge that tradition, Washington
should work with it. Offered the right incentives, warlords can
accomplish U.S. objectives more effectively and more cheaply than
Western combat battalions. The basis of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan
should therefore become decentralization and outsourcing, offering cash
and other emoluments to local leaders who will collaborate with the
United States in excluding terrorists from their territory.This
doesn't mean Washington should blindly trust that warlords will become
America's loyal partners. U.S. intelligence agencies should continue to
watch Afghanistan closely, and the Pentagon should crush any jihadist
activities that local powers fail to stop themselves. As with the
Israelis in Gaza, periodic airstrikes may well be required to pre-empt
brewing plots before they mature.Were U.S. resources unlimited
and U.S. interests in Afghanistan more important, upping the ante with
additional combat forces might make sense. But U.S. power — especially
military power — is quite limited these days, and U.S. priorities lie
elsewhere.Rather than committing more troops, therefore, the
new president should withdraw them while devising a more realistic —
and more affordable — strategy for Afghanistan
In other
words, America's war strategy is increasing instability in Pakistan.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons. So the surge could very well decrease not
only American national security but the security of the entire world.
I think that diplomatic rather than military means should be used to
kill or contain the 100 bad guys in Afghanistan. But if we are going to
remain engaged militarily, Bacevich's approach is a lot smarter than a
surge of boots on the ground.
Moreover, it would save hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars...
War hawks also ask "what would YOU have done after 9/11?" Gee, I don't know . . . maybe gotten the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden?
BONUS UPDATE 2-FOR-1 AFTER THANKSGIVING PACKAGE DEAL SPECIAL: If you don't hear about alternative plans such as Bacevich's from the corporate media, here is why ...
5 Reasons that Corporate Media Coverage is Pro-War
There are five reasons that the mainstream media is worthless.
1. Self-Censorship by Journalists
Initially, there is tremendous self-censorship by journalists.
For example, several months after 9/11, famed news anchor Dan Rather told the BBC that American reporters were practicing "a form of self-censorship":
There
was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tires around
peoples' necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you
will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of
patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps
journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions.... And
again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism.
What we are talking about here - whether one wants to recognise it
or not, or call it by its proper name or not - is a form of
self-censorship.
Keith Olbermann agreed that there is self-censorship in the American media, and that:
You
can rock the boat, but you can never say that the entire ocean is in
trouble .... You cannot say: By the way, there's something wrong with
our .... system.
As former Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin wrote in 2006:
Mainstream-media
political journalism is in danger of becoming increasingly irrelevant,
but not because of the Internet, or even Comedy Central. The threat
comes from inside. It comes from journalists being afraid to do what
journalists were put on this green earth to do. . . .
There’s
the intense pressure to maintain access to insider sources, even as
those sources become ridiculously unrevealing and oversensitive.
There’s the fear of being labeled partisan if one’s bullshit-calling
isn’t meted out in precisely equal increments along the political
spectrum.
If mainstream-media political journalists don’t start
calling bullshit more often, then we do risk losing our primacy — if
not to the comedians then to the bloggers.
I still believe that
no one is fundamentally more capable of first-rate bullshit-calling
than a well-informed beat reporter - whatever their beat. We just need
to get the editors, or the corporate culture, or the self-censorship –
or whatever it is – out of the way.
2. Censorship by Higher-Ups
If
journalists do want to speak out about an issue, they also are subject
to tremendous pressure by their editors or producers to kill the story.
The
Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture
scandal and the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam, Seymour Hersh, said:
"All
of the institutions we thought would protect us -- particularly the
press, but also the military, the bureaucracy, the Congress -- they
have failed. The courts . . . the jury's not in yet on the courts. So
all the things that we expect would normally carry us through didn't.
The biggest failure, I would argue, is the press, because that's the
most glaring....
Q: What can be done to fix the (media) situation?
[Long
pause] You'd have to fire or execute ninety percent of the editors and
executives. You'd actually have to start promoting people from the
newsrooms to be editors who you didn't think you could control. And
they're not going to do that."
In fact many journalists are warning that the true story is not being reported. See this announcement and this talk.
And a series of interviews with award-winning journalists also documents censorship of certain stories by media editors and owners (and see these samples).
There are many reasons for censorship by media higher-ups.
One is money.
The media has a strong monetary interest to avoid controversial topics in general. It has always been true that advertisers discourage stories which challenge corporate power.
Indeed, a 2003 survey reveals that 35% of reporters and news executives
themselves admitted that journalists avoid newsworthy stories if “the story would be embarrassing or damaging to the financial interests of a news organization’s owners or parent company.”
In addition, the government has allowed tremendous consolidation in ownership of the airwaves during the past decade.
Dan Rather has slammed media consolidation:
Likening
media consolidation to that of the banking industry, Rather claimed
that “roughly 80 percent” of the media is controlled by no more than
six, and possibly as few as four, corporations.
This is documented by the following must-see charts prepared by:
And check out this list of interlocking directorates of big media companies from Fairness and Accuracy in Media, and this resource from the Columbia Journalism Review to research a particular company.
This image gives a sense of the decline in diversity in media ownership over the last couple of decades:
The
large media players stand to gain billions of dollars in profits if the
Obama administration continues to allow monopoly ownership of the
airwaves by a handful of players. The media giants know who butters
their bread. So there is a spoken or tacit agreement: if the media
cover the administration in a favorable light, the MSM will continue to
be the receiver of the government's goodies.
3. Drumming Up Support for War
In addition, the owners of American media companies have long actively played a part in drumming up support for war.
It
is painfully obvious that the large news outlets studiously avoided any
real criticism of the government's claims in the run up to the Iraq
war. It is painfully obvious that the large American media companies
acted as lapdogs and stenographers for the government's war agenda.
Veteran reporter Bill Moyers criticized
the corporate media for parroting the obviously false link between 9/11
and Iraq (and the false claims that Iraq possessed WMDs) which the
administration made in the run up to the Iraq war, and concluded that
the false information was not challenged because:
"the
[mainstream] media had been cheerleaders for the White House from the
beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the
President — no questions asked."
And as NBC News' David Gregory (later promoted to host Meet the Press) said:
"I
think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did not
stand up [in the run-up to the war] and say 'this is bogus, and you're
a liar, and why are you doing this,' that we didn't do our job. I
respectfully disagree. It's not our role"
But this is nothing new. In fact, the large media companies have drummed up support for all previous wars.
For example, Hearst helped drum up support for the Spanish-American War.
And an official summary of America's overthrow of the democratically-elected president of Iran in the 1950's states, "In
cooperation with the Department of State, CIA had several articles
planted in major American newspapers and magazines which, when
reproduced in Iran, had the desired psychological effect in Iran and
contributed to the war of nerves against Mossadeq." (page x)
The mainstream media also may have played footsie with the U.S. government right before Pearl Harbor. Specifically, a highly-praised historian (Bob Stineet) argues
that the Army’s Chief of Staff informed the Washington bureau chiefs of
the major newspapers and magazines of the impending Pearl Harbor attack
BEFORE IT OCCURRED, and swore them to an oath of secrecy, which the
media honored (page 361) .
And the military-media alliance has continued without a break (as a highly-respected journalist says,
"viewers may be taken aback to see the grotesque extent to which US
presidents and American news media have jointly shouldered key
propaganda chores for war launches during the last five decades.")
As the mainstream British paper, the Independent, writes:
There
is a concerted strategy to manipulate global perception. And the mass
media are operating as its compliant assistants, failing both to resist
it and to expose it. The sheer ease with which this machinery has been
able to do its work reflects a creeping structural weakness which now
afflicts the production of our news.
The article in the
Independent discusses the use of "black propaganda" by the U.S.
government, which is then parroted by the media without analysis; for
example, the government forged
a letter from al Zarqawi to the "inner circle" of al-Qa'ida's
leadership, urging them to accept that the best way to beat US forces
in Iraq was effectively to start a civil war, which was then publicized
without question by the media..
So why has the American press has consistenly served the elites in disseminating their false justifications for war?
One of of the reasons is because the large media companies are owned by those who support the militarist agenda or even directly profit from war and terror (for example, NBC - which is being sold to Comcast - was owned by General Electric, one of the largest defense contractors in the world -- which directly profits from war, terrorism and chaos).
Another seems to be an unspoken rule that the media will not criticize the government's imperial war agenda.
And
the media support isn't just for war: it is also for various other
shenanigans by the powerful. For example, a BBC documentary proves:
There
was "a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by a group of right-wing
American businessmen . . . . The coup was aimed at toppling President
Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The
plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families
in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse &
George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should
adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great
depression."
See also this book.
Have you ever heard of this scheme before? It was certainly a very large one. And if the conspirators controlled the newspapers then, how much worse is it today with media consolidation?
4. Access
Politico reveals:
For
$25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post has offered lobbyists and
association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to
"those powerful few": Obama administration officials, members of
Congress, and — at first — even the paper’s own reporters and editors...The
offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator
for private lobbyist-official encounters — was a new sign of the
lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time
when most newspapers are struggling for survival.
That may
be one reason that the mainstream news commentators hate bloggers so
much. The more people who get their news from blogs instead of
mainstream news sources, the smaller their audience, and the less the
MSM can charge for the kind of "nonconfrontational access" which leads
to puff pieces for the big boys.
5. Censorship by the Government
Finally,
as if the media's own interest in promoting war is not strong enough,
the government has exerted tremendous pressure on the media to report
things a certain way. Indeed, at times the government has thrown media owners and reporters in jail
if they've been too critical. The media companies have felt great
pressure from the government to kill any real questioning of the
endless wars.
For example, Dan Rather said, regarding American media, "What you have is a miniature version of what you have in totalitarian states".
Tom Brokaw said "all wars are based on propaganda.
And the head of CNN said:
Indeed, former military analyst and famed Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that the government has ordered the media not to cover 9/11:
Ellsberg seemed hardly surprised
that today's American mainstream broadcast media has so far failed to
take [former FBI translator and 9/11 whistleblower Sibel] Edmonds up on
her offer, despite the blockbuster nature of her allegations [which
Ellsberg calls "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers"].
As
Edmonds has also alluded, Ellsberg pointed to the New York Times, who
"sat on the NSA spying story for over a year" when they "could have put
it out before the 2004 election, which might have changed the outcome."
"There
will be phone calls going out to the media saying 'don't even think of
touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security,'" he told us.
* * *
"I am confident that there is conversation inside the Government as to 'How do we deal with Sibel?'" contends Ellsberg. "The
first line of defense is to ensure that she doesn't get into the media.
I think any outlet that thought of using her materials would go to to
the government and they would be told 'don't touch this . . . .'"
Of course, if the stick approach doesn't work, the government can always just pay off reporters to spread disinformation.
Famed Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein says the CIA has already bought and paid for many successful journalists. See also this New York Times piece, this essay by the Independent, this speech by one of the premier writers on journalism, and this and this roundup.
Indeed,
in the final analysis, the main reason today that the media giants will
not cover the real stories or question the government's actions or
policies in any meaningful way is that the American government and
mainstream media been somewhat blended together.
Can We Win the Battle Against Censorship?
We
cannot just leave governance to our "leaders", as "The price of freedom
is eternal vigilance" (Jefferson). Similarly, we cannot leave news to
the corporate media. We need to "be the media" ourselves.
"To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men."
- Abraham Lincoln
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
"Powerlessness
and silence go together. We...should use our privileged positions not
as a shelter from the world's reality, but as a platform from which to
speak. A voice is a gift. It should be cherished and used."
– Margaret Atwood
"There
is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is
the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at
points in history and creating a power that [nothing] cannot suppress."
- Howard Zinn (historian)
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent"
- Thomas Jefferson
- advertisements -
Asymmetric warfare is not something we appear to be good at. Unfortunately our enemy understands this very well. It's all about overreaction and disproportionate response. We are spending $566billion per year on the war in Afghanistan. Spending that much money to track down 100 guys is nuts. We are like an elephant fighting a cockroach. They (terrorists, Al Qaeda, Lone gunmen) plant one bomb or kill one hundred innocent civilians and we put all the resources of the pentagon to find them: global hawk, gorgon stare, tactical lasers, military industrial complex, much much more. The right response is to treat these terrorist like uncommon criminals. Catching Bin Laden is more a matter of good police work than a high tech military task force. We need seasoned Detectives and Investigators who know the locals if we ever stand a chance at finding Bin Laden. Hunting Bin Laden should be done by a joint task force of NYPD detectives, Interpol, and military intelligence.
I disagree with your dovish assessment completely. Cruise missiles didn't protect us then and they won't protect us now. What we need to do is change the Pakistani mode of thinking, both in the government and the ISI. For many years they have been an unrecognized state sponsor of terror, but now that they try to enter the global economy, those ties have bitten them in the ass.
America may or may not have put Pakistan on that path with the 1980's Mujaheddin, but it is clear that Pakistan has used Afghanistan as a model to try to acquire Jammu and Kashmir from the Indians. Now, that activity, primarily of the ISI, has come back to haunt them, in that the monster they have created has turned on it's creators.
This war is not about Afghanistan, really so much as it is about Pakistan. We have a near perfect opportunity to be the anvil in Afghanistan as Pakistan acts as the hammer to rid the region and the primary source of world-wide jihaddism in it's current flavor. This terrorism is not a method of war enacted by mere criminals, but a meme, initially sponsored by Carter, Reagan and the Saudis and trained by the CIA and Pakistan's intelligence service. This meme must be crushed. It is more dangerous than communism in the hands of Pol Pot because it is not and will not be localized. That's why we're there.
If we leave, the Taliban and Al Queda will not quietly settle back into medieval life in Afghanistan. A new frontier, and a new enemy has been found with Pakistan, and it's deliverable nuclear weapons are the holy grail. Meanwhile, disaffected muslim youth of the western world will continue to see the shock and awe of documented Al Queda as a model for action.
Don't be a chickenshit or spendthrift on something that actually does, and will, affect national security.
In 2001, I had this to say:
“Eight years from now, it will be 2009.” ~loup garou~
At least once, I have pondered this:
“How do they get deer to cross the road only at those yellow road signs?” ~loup garou~
And this:
“What if there were no hypothetical questions?” ~loup garou~
On several occasions, I have considered this:
“How many more whip marks does this dead horse deserve?” ~loup garou~
No fewer than twice, I have thought this:
“I don’t give a rat’s ass what Keith Olbermann, Bill Moyers, Dan Rather, Rosie O’Donnell , or quite a few others have to say.” ~loup garou~
Numerous times, I have speculated about this:
“How many liberal committee meetings does it take to change a light bulb?” ~loup garou~
And only a few minutes ago, I wondered about this:
“Why would anyone waste their time on a 3-ring circus of semi-literate, Kool-Aid drinking, Rosie O‘Donnell types; anti-Semitic, anti-American, anti-Christian bigots and propaganda-spewing phony “populists“; rebel-without-a-clue, Don Quixote-types; deranged lynch mob aspirants, looking for the nearest tree; chemically-imbalanced pity-party hostesses and their tag-alongs, doing battle with their inner demons and wallowing in misery; Brooklyn Bridge-buying, tinfoil hat-wearing, conspiracy-behind-every-tree kookburgers; whining wannabe traders whose emotions have failed them miserably; and other assorted malcontents and misfits?” ~loup garou~
Pakistan 2011 = Iran 1979
check out this interview.
.
Health Styles Friday December 4, 2009 1:00pm
Public Affairs
.
http://archive.wbai.org/
.
she says " u.s., get out!" let the people
of afganistan deal with their own internal stuff.
this from someone who was born there, grew there,
lives there, loves there, governed there,
malaya joya, "a women among warlords".
. btw
9/11 has nothing to do with this, tapi pipeline
does, imperialism does, collapsing ponzi financial
system does.
Pakistan reshuffles the nuclear deck, I feel safer already. It really is about Pakistan, right?
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — President Asif Ali Zardari has ceded his position in Pakistan’s nuclear command structure to his prime minister, in a sudden political maneuver widely seen as a fresh sign of turmoil on the eve of President Obama’s strategy announcement for the region.
Until his latest move, Mr. Zardari held the top civilian position in the organization known as the National Command Authority, which controls every aspect of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal — decisions to move or launch any of its 60 to 100 nuclear weapons, to expand the country’s nuclear stockpile and to oversee the security of the weapons and nuclear laboratories.
Pakistan’s previous president, Pervez Musharraf, was an army general, and Mr. Zardari’s position was supposed to signal civilian control of the country’s nuclear assets. But in reality, it is Pakistan’s powerful military that exerts control over the country’s nuclear arsenal, and Pakistani observers noted Saturday that the handover to Prime Minister SyedYousaf Raza Gilani had no practical effect on the hierarchy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/world/asia/29pstan.html
Bravo, GW, please more posts like that... That strategy makes perfect sense (even if 100 Al Qaeda is probably off by at least an order of magnitude).
You suck dnarby. Do even read these posts?
Well actually that is false, not only do we have existing police forces and increasingly militarized SWAT forces but we now have, thanks to our crazy border policies, actual US Military advisors working for free in Salinas, California.
Until we are forced to confront Islam and acknowledge its bloody borders dealing with local warlords as you describe is exactly how we should proceed but US Special forces need to be there to support the warlords. Training them, arming them, supporting their fight, going native...
Respectfully, sir, I believe that fundamentalist Christians and fundamentialist Muslims are almost identical - they are both willing to use violence to acheive their goals and "covert" others.
I also believe, sir, that more mature Christians and more mature Muslims are more similar to each other than they are to their radical same-faith namesakes. They just wish to live in peace and try to live prosperous, happy, lives.
I hope that one day you will look into your own heart - and then you will recognize the truth in what I am saying.
Good luck, sir.
Sorry we will disagree on that one.
Here is a rather long quote that gives lie to the belief that Islam can co-exist with anyone else. You simply have nothing to base your belief that Islam is somehow only as violent as Christianity. Much violence has been done in Christianity's name but that is the weakness of men's souls not the teachings of Christ. Muhammed on the other hand lived the life of a warrior.
Amir Taheri's remarks during the debate on " Islam Is Incompatible With Democracy"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/05/islam-is-incompatible-with-democracy-403-to-267.html
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am glad that this debate takes place in English.
Because, were it to be conducted in any of the languages of our part of the world, we would not have possessed the vocabulary needed.
To understand a civilisation it is important to understand its vocabulary.
If it was not on their tongues it is likely that it was not on their minds either.
There was no word in any of the Muslim languages for democracy until the 1890s. Even then the Greek word democracy entered Muslim languages with little change: democrasi in Persian, dimokraytiyah in Arabic, demokratio in Turkish.
Democracy as the proverbial schoolboy would know is based on one fundamental principle: equality.
The Greek word for equal isos is used in more than 200 compound nouns; including isoteos (equality) and Isologia (equal or free speech) and isonomia (equal treatment).
But again we find no equivalent in any of the Muslim languages. The words we have such as barabari in Persian and sawiyah in Arabic mean juxtaposition or levelling.
Nor do we have a word for politics.
The word siassah, now used as a synonym for politics, initially meant whipping stray camels into line.( Sa'es al-kheil is a person who brings back lost camels to the caravan. )The closest translation may be: regimentation.
Nor is there mention of such words as government and the state in the Koran.
It is no accident that early Muslims translated numerous ancient Greek texts but never those related to political matters. The great Avicenna himself translated Aristotle's Poetics. But there was no translation of Aristotle's Politics in Persian until 1963.
Lest us return to the issue of equality.
The idea is unacceptable to Islam.
For the non-believer cannot be the equal of the believer.
Even among the believers only those who subscribe to the three so-called Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam ( Ahl el-Kitab) are regarded as fully human.
Here is the hierarchy of human worth in Islam:
At the summit are free male Muslims
Next come Muslim male slaves
Then come free Muslim women
Next come Muslim slave women.
Then come free Jewish and /or Christian men
Then come slave Jewish and/or Christian men
Then come slave Jewish and/or Christian women.
Each category has rights that must be respected.
The People of the Book have always been protected and relatively well-treated by Muslim rulers, but often in the context of a form of apartheid known as dhimmitude.
The status of the rest of humanity, those whose faiths are not recognised by Islam or who have no faith at all, has never been spelled out although wherever Muslim rulers faced such communities they often treated them with a certain measure of tolerance and respect ( As in the case of Hindus under the Muslim dynasties of India.)
Non-Muslims can, and have often been, treated with decency, but never as equals.
(There is a hierarchy even for animals and plants. Seven animals and seven plants will assuredly go to heaven while seven others of each will end up in Hell.)
Democracy means the rule of the demos, the common people, or what is now known as popular or national sovereignty.
In Islam, however, power belongs only to God: al-hukm l'illah. The man who exercises that power on earth is known as Khalifat al-Allah, the regent of God.
But even then the Khalifah or Caliph cannot act as legislator. The law has already been spelled out and fixed for ever by God.
The only task that remains is its discovery, interpretation and application.
That, of course, allows for a substantial space in which different styles of rule could develop.
But the bottom line is that no Islamic government can be democratic in the sense of allowing the common people equal shares in legislation.
Islam divides human activities into five categories from the permitted to the sinful, leaving little room for human interpretation, let alone ethical innovations.
What we must understand is that Islam has its own vision of the world and man's place in it.
To say that Islam is incompatible with democracy should not be seen as a disparagement of Islam.
On the contrary, many Muslims would see it as a compliment because they sincerely believe that their idea of rule by God is superior to that of rule by men which is democracy.
In Muslim literature and philosophy being forsaken by God is the worst that can happen to man.
The great Persian poet Rumi pleads thus:
Oh, God, do not leave our affairs to us
For, if You do, woe be to us.
Rumi mocks those who claim that men can rule themselves.
He says:
You are not reign even over your beard,
That grows without your permission.
How can you pretend, therefore,
To rule about right and wrong?
The expression "abandoned by God" sends shivers down Muslim spines. For it spells the doom not only of individuals but of entire civilisations.
The Koran tells the stories of tribes, nations and civilisations that perished when God left them to their devices.
The great Persian poet Attar says :
I have learned of Divine Rule in Yathirb ( i.e. Medinah, the city of the Prophet)
What need do I have of the wisdom of the Greeks?
Hafez, another great Persian poet, blamed man's "hobut" or fall on the use of his own judgment against that of God:
I was an angel and my abode was the eternal paradise
Adam ( i.e.) man brought me to this place of desolation
Islamic tradition holds that God has always intervened in the affairs of men, notably by dispatching 124000 prophets or emissaries to inform the mortals of His wishes and warnings.
Many Islamist thinkers regard democracy with horror.
The late Ayatollah Khomeini called democracy " a form of prostitution" because he who gets the most votes wins the power that belongs only to God.
Sayyed Qutub, the Egyptian who has emerged as the ideological mentor of Safalists, spent a year in the United States in the 1950s.
He found "a nation that has forgotten God and been forsaken by Him; an arrogant nation that wants to rule itself."
Last year Yussuf al-Ayyeri, one of the leading theoreticians of today's Islamist movement, published a book ( available on the Internet) in which he warned that the real danger to Islam did not come from American tanks and helicopter gunships in Iraq but from the idea of democracy and rule by the people.
Tell me why isn't there a terrorist attack since 9/11? Here the answer. We're kill those SOB in their own backyard. This isn't my opinion it is a fact.
GW you seems to think you know all the answers. Why don't you advise Obama how to run this war. You know promote you to arm chair four star general.
Give me a fucking break.
BTW, Pakistan was never a stable country to begin with.
"Tell me why isn't there a terrorist attack since 9/11?"
That's what I keep asking myself. It took 15 suicide nuts to turn Mumbai upside down for days. There are at least 6 million Muslims in the US, why haven't seen anything since 9/11? What's wrong with this picture? Perhaps it's not about "them against us", like they want us to believe.
"Tell me why isn't there a terrorist attack since 9/11?"
Um ... REALLY?
Well, duh. Why do you think those Saudi grad students (roughly defined) attacked the US on 9/11? They figured we were dumb enough to spend a few trillion dollars to try to take out an enemy that doesn't even exist. And you know what? Because the brass in our defense department is always fighting the last war, we have. Funny thing is I remember from my American history that this was exactly how my revolutionary ancestors (seven and counting) defeated the bureaucratic Brits who thought they knew how to wage war. It's tragic to see this great nation is pretty much the same deer in the headlights the British were in North America some 250 years ago. What goes around comes around, as they say.
"There are probably more than 100 homicidal maniacs in any large American city. But we (the USA) wouldn't send soldiers into the city to get those bad guys."
????
Guess you missed the whole New Orleans confiscation of guns from private citizens trying to protect themselves, their loved ones and their home... or G20 riots in Pittsburgh. Just wait until the USA really starts using their military force against Americans. Some may laugh, yet just wait and see as no one expected gold to be over $1150 or unemployment to be over 17% (U6) with 20% of American families on food stamps.
O.T. PS: so far FDIC closed four banks today.
I don't give a rat's ass if we send 300,000 more troops over to Afghanistan; as long as we raise and carry the Israeli flag, to clarify who we're really protecting. And where's the fucking draft, already? Let's put these unemployed kids to work! We're fucking warmongers; you're a fucking warmonger; so start acting like it and drink your kool-aid and poison like a man!
this neighbor of mine: one day he's watering some flowers, when i catch him copping a look at my 16 year-old daughter. it was just for a moment; and honestly, i have no idea what he was thinking; hell, maybe he wasn't even looking at her at all - how the fuck am i supposed to really know!? know what i mean?
but it got me thinking - this guy could be trouble; so i decide, for the protection of the family, that i open a preemptive can-o-whoopass on this MF, just in case. so i go over to his house later on; walk right in like i own the fucking place; kick the everliving shit outta this dude. and for good measure, i slap his punk kid around, and lay a big wet one on his missus. mission accomplished.
next day, i don't see this MF, his wife, kid, dog - nothing. Next day - same thing. For a whole week this goes on. Scary almost. Actually, it is scary, cuz now i'm thinking to myself when i'm away from home - why didn't he call the police? what kind of crazy terrorist shit is this dude dreaming up to do to me, my family, or my house? and what about the poor neighbors? this guy is bad news all around. i should have gone in full force and taken him out.
so, what do you think? the guys fucking whacked, right? should i pop a couple caps into him and save the neighborhood?
No.... he is tunnelling under your house to kill you.You should IMMEADIATELY detonate an atomic bomb...just to be safe.
the cheaper and more effective military strategy for afghanistan is to get the fuck out, close down the wicked cia, fire gates, and fire obama.....
the war in the middle east is a cia sponsored effort whose latest incarnation created al-qaeda as a front for us intelligence's destruction of the wtc in a controlled demoltion using nanothermite, the nazi patriot act, and a permenent state of war....the bush crime syndicate is behind the fake war funded by the magical powers of the fed.....
www.ae911truth.org
Bury the Unocal pipeline 50 feet underground encased in cement with a Kramerica type rubber bladder. Anything else is just more blood and treasure into the meat grinder.
Looking on the bright side, maybe the Afghan people will be nice enough to leave one of our troops among the living so he can tell the real story of the US defeat.
Obama had been prepared to announce the withdrawal date of July 2011 - as he did on Tuesday - but without sending the extra troops. However, there were two main problems:
The US would not accept a Taliban government, to be known to the world as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, to be led by the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar. That is, under no circumstances would Mullah Omar be allowed to feature in any new setup.
The US wanted to be able to claim the defeat of al-Qaeda - at present, the US believes it has only been 70% successful.
"I think the US knows that they have lost the war in Afghanistan, but they have not finished the work in the tribal area near the Durand Line [that separates Pakistan and Afghanistan]. Don't you think that the US might use the 30,000 fresh soldiers as a wall to prevent al-Qaeda members from entering into Afghanistan while they [US] and the Pakistani army attack from all sides to these above-mentioned areas for a final push to do the last and most damage to al-Qaeda, claim victory, and then start leaving gradually to save their face?
"Don't you think that is the reason they are cornering [Pakistani President Asif Ali] Zardari to deal with the military directly so the military can implement enough pressure on the so-called Pakistani Taliban to let al-Qaeda go from their grip so they [US] can hunt them down," said Abedi.
Abedi said this was the most suitable way for the US to direct the war only towards al-Qaeda so that deals could be set up with the Afghans. Abedi is convinced that the US should not prolong the war as it is already lost. (Obama admitted in his speech on Tuesday that vast tracts of Afghanistan are under Taliban control).
For Abedi, a 24-month package - withdrawal after 18 month and six months to set up a transitional government - is the best answer for Afghanistan as it offers opportunities for all of the parties involved.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KL05Df03.html
The insanity of this whole undertaking just stupifies. And the powerlessness of the people to do much to stop it simply points up the full dimemsions of the dilema we face. The thing just seems to have a momentum of its own. The lobbies are part of it, the politicians, the media, its all of a piece. First the propaganda, then the contrived argumentation, none of which includes serious consideration of the possibility of immediate withdrawal, then the formal announcement of the troop committment, more propaganda, this time the blubering military wives somewhere in South Carolina bemoaning the fact that this is David's third combat tour in a year as though he had joined the Army expecting only box seats to Dodgers games, and, finally, the
President's tasteless and sacreligious dedication of the enterprise to God, Who, like some doting grampa in the sky, can be counted upon, they suspect, to avert His gaze from the incineration of the Pakistani kids in some hapless wedding celebration. This country is a fetid sewer morally, this latest escalation vying with our daily abortion count for the prize of being most squalid. And never get the idea that voting will ever change things. We're quite beyond that
yes we were told that we are in afghanistan because some talk skinny arab guy with a towel around his head,living a cave in bora bora, orchestrated the most sophisticated terror attack in the history of the modern world. and they did this with alleged hijacked planes that flew around in the most heavily guarded airspace in the world for over a hour unmolested. is there something wrong with this picture. the afghan people never had anything to do with 911 and the only reason they fight us is they want us out of their country. i see no problem with that request. i have no ax to grind on this issue. i have no problem with the afghans. let them rule their own country the way they want to. but the liars tell us to go there and fight and so the mind controlled young people go there and fight and die for nothing and when they come home , if they come home, they get stupid medals pinned on their chests and are told what brave warriors they are. God sometimes you just want to go get drunk and forget about it. at one time in my life i used to try and do that. but it simply does not work. it makes it worse. i say what i say around here to anyone who will listen. most don't. they are blind and cannot see. they have ears but they cannot hear. our nation is mind controlled and doesn't even know it. so many are lost within themselves, in worlds that they themselves have created for themselves in a land where they actually have the nerve to think they are free men and women but are not. oh if only jefferson could come back to life for just a week and speak to us, would anyone hear him? it is hard to say. it is difficult to break through through all of the static that is in this world. people chasing riches and glory. those who talk about truth are ridiculed and called crazy. i myself have been told many times by my family that i should be committed. they simply do not understand such words. they go to church every sunday and pass off such things and say it is God's will and i say to them it is not. they pray for our war machine and as this mercenary army goes out and kills and murders in the name of america, we are told by many Christian leaders that it is God's will and i tell you it is not. For how can it be? How can a perfect God, the Creator of all things sanction murder and mayheim? He will not. He cannot. Neither will I. Someone says, well i support the troops. to such folly i say, how is this so? how can you support the troops when the troops are doing wrong? for 8 years now many of the same men and women have been doing the same things over and over again in the name of freedom and liberty but they don't know why? i say to them. it is your duty. it is your right. it is necessary for you to lay down your arms and come home. stop this insanity now. it is time. 8 years now and still these wars that never end continue. how long will it before you see the madness of it all? how long indeed. I am truely sorry for them now. I hope and pray that one day, they will see the truth as it is. bin laden and al quaeda were created by the cia, an appendage of the mossad. another words folks, they do not exist. bush said this war on terror, (whatever that means) will last a hundred years. strange dichotomy isn't it, when the very countries that go around chasing supposed terrorist are they themselves the actual and real terrorist? so now we fight for a hundred years and we chase enemies that do not exist and can never be found. as the old greatful dead used to sing, what a strange trip its been.....yes very strange and we are just starting our journey. to those who use promise and megaphone, i say to you. there are many lone wolves out here in the void, waiting until the signal is given to gather at the crossroads.....amen and amen....
"Finally, the concept that the Taliban or Al Qaeda can be defeated is the wrong way to view things. But it is the only way the US populace is able to conceive an outcome. Terror will NEVER be removed." - You are thinking about things the wrong way. The War on Terror employs countless weapons manufacturers, soldiers, generals, and private contractors. Likewise, the War on Drugs employs countless prosecutors, policeman, judges, defense lawyers, jailors, and drug rehabilitation therapists. Both Wars fill campaign coffers. As expensive socialist programs meant to increase government power, they are resounding successes.
"Let me get this straight: We shouldn't send troops to ensure our civilian safety here in america?"
Actually, I think it's our meddling acts of aggression that have caused American civilians to become targets. How would you feel if Al-Qaeida established and subsidized a muslim homeland inside of USA? I recommend adopting the Switzerland strategy (i.e. neutrality) and not needlessly involving ourselves in further, expensive acts of aggression and resulting blowback.
"The national Government is here to provide first and foremost public goods. This is basic economics" - The science of economics has nothing to say about the proper role of government. Economics can only tell us what economic consequences particular policies will have.
"God forbid, they detonate a WMD in New York City." - My rough guess is that it would be less in cost than the Iraq war (over 4000 lives and $2 trillion). Unless the WMD in question is a hydrogen fusion weapon - like the ones that USA has employed against civilians. Then it might be more expensive.
"You are dead wrong you penny pinching, wealth redistributing Socialist Son of a Bitch (SSOB.)" - This remark confuses me for two reasons. First, how can someone be penny-pinching and yet want their wealth to be redistributed? Perhaps the person in question is poor and is expecting others' wealth to be redistributed to him? Second, it is odd to call others socialist and yet be in favor of military spending. That certainly involves socialist wealth redistribution.
Our meddling acts of aggression? So we deserve this? We, as Americans, deserve to be killed? Thats your argument? We shouldn't defend ourselves? Basically, we should just take it. Thats very, very rational of you to assert. We should just die because our governments of yesteryear acted without our input, therefore we deserve to die. These terrorists are not going to say, "Hey, America's now nuetral. Let us let them live." No, they are brainwashed to believe that America is the devil, and that when they die, they will get 40 virgins.
Me. I deserve to die according to you. I've done nothing. I live four avenues away from ground zero Manhattan. I should lie down and die because of you moral interpretation of the situation.
Thank you, but no.
Please remember that when you argue with me, the idea is not to prove just how fucking educated yet fucking liberal you are in as few words as possible. It took you one paragraph.
"The proper role of government"
Again, every time I hear the words, should or ought or proper, I understand that it is a moral perspective, as if morals rule human behavior. They do not. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand human behavior, you don't understand the world around you, you don't understand human nature, yet it sounds as though you might understand the "proper" role of government. Interesting...
"The science of economics has nothing to say about the proper role of government. Economics can only tell us what the economic consequences particular policies will have."
Please ask Keynes about the proper role of government and the need for economic analysis in government planning. The Govt is not to compete with the private sector, but only to provide what private sector cannot. Finish reading this paragraph before you start responding. Public defense, fiscal stimulus when the deficit and the national debt allow it. The private sector would provide healthcare for those in need if they could afford it. They cannot. That means the government, with all its efficiency will operate at a loss providing that service. The market has been made by the private sector. Since what George Washington is arguing for, here, is the Fiscal Deficit is too much to cover more war, my point is the fucking war is nothing in comparison in terms of the budget. Healthcare is $150B a year for ten years. The war is $30B a year for 8 years. Healthcare is idiotic. George Washington is a fucking idiot. ZeroHEdge sells out allowing him to post.
A pause for Comedic Relief: http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clips/china-cold-open/1178451/
The fact that you think that Economics is merely a support function tells me you fail to understand the vast importance of rational decision making. You, probably in a Chicagoan brass knuckles sort of way, chuckle at my arguments and say "tough, we have the power we are going to do whatever we want" If you understood economics, you would understand that it is the economic might of america that allowed that type of politics to evolve here. Our economic might is in question and with it so are your/Obama's political tactics. This is beyond you though. You play for power in the short term, not understanding that the power tactics that you grew up with are actually worthless and crumpling beneath you with America. You are due for a Paradigm shift.
Back to the main point its not about the economic consequences of certain policies, but about the strategic economic planning that is needed to continue providing the freedoms we grew up enjoying, for our children.
Concerning a WMD detonation in the densest core of Manhattan, I'm glad that you look at just the dollar figures of the situation. It is quite easy to see that you have no idea how many people could die from such an attack. 4000 troops could easily surpassed by 250,000 civilian deaths instantly from a nuclear attack on NYC. Fuck the two trillion dollars, you heartless, uncalculating bastard.
Moving right along....
America has never unleashed thermonuclear weapons on civilians. There are two types of nuclear weapons, fusion and fission, and fusion has never been released.
Your post is either a joke, or you know about as much as a domesticated dog.... Just getting that out there.
GW is penny pinching in the fact that he wants to cut costs in regards to saving american civilian lives from terrorism. One could speculate that he thinks the healthcare bill could benefit from America cutting back on its public goods spending.
He can be both penny pinching in a microscopic sense, yet wealth distributing in a macro sense. This is beyond you. Careful analysis would show you that there are two entirely different issues at hand here. Careful analysis is not your strong suit.
It is not odd, in fact, to be in favor of military spending yet be against socialism, harking back to the debate about public goods, and private competition. Both of which are beyond you.
Thank you for your sacrifices as cannon fodder.
Mathematically speaking, economics is not a function of government. Government is a function of economics.
Our meddling acts of aggression? So we deserve this? We, as Americans, deserve to be killed for our past government's actions? Thats your argument? We shouldn't defend ourselves? Basically, we should just take it. Thats very, very rational of you to assert. We should just die because our governments of yesteryear acted without our input, and we should lay down and die for it, because, essentially we deserve to die. These terrorists are not going to say, "Hey, America's now nuetral. Let us let them live." No, they are brainwashed to believe that America is the devil, and that when they die, they will get 40 virgins, so why not hurry up the process.
Me. I deserve to die according to you. I've done nothing. I live four avenues away from ground zero Manhattan. I should lie down and die because of your moral interpretation of the situation.
Please remember that when you argue with me, the idea is not to prove just how fucking uneducated yet liberal you are in as few words as possible. It took you one paragraph.
"The proper role of government"
Again, every time I hear the words, should or ought or proper, I understand that that the argument is of a moral perspective, as if morals rule human behavior, and should be the deciding factor for the fate of midtown manhattan. Morales actually do not. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand human behavior, you don't understand the world around you, you don't understand human nature. Moving on....
"The science of economics has nothing to say about the proper role of government. Economics can only tell us what the economic consequences particular policies will have."
Please ask Keynes about the proper role of government and the need for economic analysis in government planning. The Govt was not created to compete with the private sector, but only to provide what private sector cannot. Public defense, fiscal stimulus when the deficit and the national debt allow it. The private sector would provide healthcare for those in need if they could afford it. They cannot. That means the government, with all its efficiency will operate at a loss providing that service. When you tax hard working american's to pay for that loss, thats a redistribution of wealth. Right along here to the next point....
The fact that you think that Economics is merely a support function tells me you fail to understand the vast importance of rational decision making. You, probably in a Chicagoan brass knuckles politics sort of way, chuckle at my arguments and say "tough, we have the power we are going to do whatever we want" If you understood economics, you would understand that it is the economic might of america that allowed that type of politics to evolve here. Our economic power is in question and with it so are our political tactics. This is beyond you though. You play for power in the here and now, not understanding that that the tactics that you rose up understanding are actually crumpling beneath you with America. You are due for a Paradigm shift. In the markets, you are the target... you will react when you realize the above. When that happens
Back to the main point its not about the economic consequences of certain actions, but about the strategic economic planning that is needed to
Concerning a WMD detonation in the densest core of Manhattan, I'm glad that you look at just the dollar figures of the situation. It is quite easy to see that you have no idea how many people could die from such an attack. 4000 troops could easily surpassed by 250,000 civilian deaths instantly from a nuclear attack on NYC.
"War hawks also ask "what would YOU have done after 9/11?" Gee, I don't know . . . maybe gotten the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden?"
Please read Ghost Wars by Steve Coll. It's an excellent recent history and analysis of the region. The US attempted to engage the Tabliban diplomatically for years in an attempt to have bin Laden handed over. The Taliban had (and have) no interest in negotiating. They are zealots who will not negotiate or compromise as they firmly believe that they are right.
I don't know where the "100 al Quaeda" number comes from, but I think you have to include the Taliban in that number, which would make the number substantially higher.
The current US military strategy will attempt to gain the support of tribes and gradually drive the Taliban/al Quaeda out with their cooperation.
Lay off President Clinton. Bin Laden was Rumsfeld and "wimp"'s boy. We used him to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. No "terrorism" on Bill's watch. Just prosperity and full employment. It would'nt suprise me if the Chimp and his evil neo-con henchmen devised 9/11. And why could'nt Chimpy find him? Because he is a consistent, epic FAILURE!
Nothing to see here, Mr. Wright. Oh, you're a liberal? Well, come on down, take a look at that.
Wait, you can't possibly write that...
"No "terrorism" on Bill's watch"
Bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Bombing of U.S. Cole, bombing the World Trade Center the first time, those are just a few that happened on President Clinton's watch. Prosperity like Enron and Worldcom and Long Term Capital Management happened on Bill Clinton's watch.
ok city was just a warm up for the wtc second addition.
worked pretty good. truck with alleged fertilizer bomb parked out front. then set off by remote control. this was used to hide the fact that someone had placed numerous bombs inside of the building itself. then the militias were framed for this act.
fast forward to 911. planes were used to hide the fact that some kind of explosives or nuclear type things were placed in the two towers. the planes were guided by remote control into the buildings and then all of this activity was used to hide the explosions that were set off inside of the building. frankly at this point, the best scenerio i have seen about this is that small nuclear reactors were placed inside of the building basements and were allowed to overheat and then they went into meltdown, similar to what happened at chernobyl, except on a much smaller scale. and yes they do have nuclear reactor power systems for buildings, in case anyone cares to know....this would account for how everything was turned to microscopic dust and why so many of the emergency workers are now dying of radiation sickness type diseases not to mention the fact that something burned under the blown up structures for weeks on end after the event and the temps were in the area of 3000 degrees. what can cause this? something was very hot under that rubble and it wasn't airplane gas......then of course muslims were blamed for the attacks....how convenient.
then you ask yourself what would they have to gain by doing this and you answer yourself and say absolutely nothing. so then who did have anything to gain from this event? well let me quote one bejamin netanyahu. to wit...
"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/975574.html
oh yes so we see who benefited from this attack......hmmmmm
so what really happened?
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html?q=fiveisrael...
always remember one thing. the motto of the mossad....
by way of deception thou shall do war.....
and so it has been.
a man that called himself cactus jack of wrestling fame used to talk about "testicular fortitude"...
i ask you. were is our testicular fortitude these days?
does the blood of our samuel adams run in our veins?
to understand all of this one must understand brain washing and conditioning on a massive scale that has been going on now for a very long time. some of us make it out of this matrix and think outside the box made for us by those who would enslave us. as time goes by and out nation dies, i would hope that more of you finally realize what is really going on
Let me get this straight:
We shouldn't send troops to ensure our civilian safety here in america?
Okay, lets get started.
"There are probably more than 100 homicidal maniacs in any large American city. But we wouldn't send soldiers into the city to get those bad guys."
Yes, thats because we have police, and FBI resources already dedicated to these tasks. In some cities the number of police men/women is in the tens of thousands already. Their infrastructure, their fixed costs, have already become sunk costs, and their operating budgets are indeed alot lower than the $30 Billion figure you have laid out. But imagine what is needed to set up and maintain infrastructure for an ad hock police force of 30,000 in a city without any existing police? Obviously, its expensive, but necessary.
But that raises another point. What is your break even number in your cost benefit analysis of the worth of a single American civilian life?
It is infinite in my analysis. It is obviously less, and quantifiable for you.
The national Government is here to provide first and foremost public goods. This is basic economics, and you obiv are not well versed in it. There is no other provider of national defense--no private competition.
In comparison there is private medical assistance available. So you are worried about spending $30 B a year on monopolistic public goods, yet the thought of spending $150B every year for the next ten years on something that the private sector (medical/healthcare) has already established a market for, is for some reason to you, rational?
I wish to interdict my analysis of your argument with a side note. You, and Obama, are stating the costs of the war are too great to justify a larger commitment from the united states, yet, the costs of healthcare are justifiable. This logic should lead any rational american to understand that, there is concrete contradiction in this line of thought. Can't fool everyone all of the time. You are not fooling me.
Continuing back to my main point. The option of leaving Al-queda to stew and ferment in Pakistan and Afghanistan is undeniably unacceptable for the reasons that you outline.
The future costs, in a DCF analysis will show you that continuing the fight right now with our operations and supply lines already established is less than the costs of withdrawing are redeploying in the five years in the future, to finish the job.
God forbid, they detonate a WMD in New York City. The costs in terms of both human life, and the future war will greatly exceed $30B, even if you apply a conservate corporate bond ROI compounded. We both know the Government does not make investments, look at the post office.
Yes, Pakistan has nuclear weapons and risking Pakistan to fall under Taliban/Al Qaeda control is a significant danger to American National Security, and a risk to the budget. No, Al-queda should not be given any breathing room to seed further dissent on the globe.
You are dead wrong you penny pinching, wealth redistributing Socialist Son of a Bitch (SSOB.)
Shame on ZeroHedge for allowing you to post as a contributor.
Sell yourself ZH, allow someone to create value with your brand.
now how in the hell are the defense contractors and private sec. firms gonna make money with "politics"?(
You are missing the point. An escalation - i.e. subsidizing weapons manufacturers - is the best solution if you are politician seeking campaign funds for your reelection.
This is silly "Bribe the warlords to do our bidding" and if they take our cash and dont do it send in troops to smash them AND the Taleban...
Okey...
well, Iran offered up the Hezbollah in the aftermath of 911 and Busch rebuked them too with "Axis of Evil."
The Taliban offered OBL in exchange for evidence of his perpetration of the 911 attacks.
OBL in exchange for evidence.
Pure BS by the Taliban. They would have laughed at any presentation of evidence. They were never going to hand him over. First I've heard of the Hezbollah reference.
Sudan had OBL in prison and offered to hand him over but we refused to take custody. Have no clue why we refused to take custody.
The Taliban wouldn't turn over Bin Laden OR Mullah Omar, remember?
There was nothing we could've done which would have convinced them to take this step. Remember, only weeks before 9/11 they'd killed one of the West's best hopes for fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan because they were planning to KEEP Afghanistan as a training base and launching point for jihad.
That said, I tend to agree that we need to end our military exposure. But doing so arbitrarily right now would be devastating and there is NO CLEARLY VIABLE solution to the problem.
You have your solution which you think is good. Many others have theirs. And many solutions call for a military component.
At this point, we are not fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is a proxy term for Taliban. While different they are not separate. Defeat the Taliban, and you defeat the core group of Al Qaeda. Almost as if you'd wiped out the NVA during the Vietnam War. It wouldn't have ended the war, but it would have put the pressure on the Viet Cong to carry on without logistical support in key regions.
We are losing Afghanistan for a variety of reasons.
One is political. What started as a war with clear goals has shifted due to political pressures which surrounded our foray into Iraq. The two, while separate, were conflated and thus each carried its own political baggage while representing very different potential benefits with regard to combating terror (indeed, it's fair to say Iraq represented the "tip of the spear" upon which militants wished to prove themselves against the military might of the US - a very costly move on their part).
Another reason is opium. We can't control this seasonal drug except to do something NOBODY wants to do from a political standpoint. Make drugs legal.
Do that, and we provide Afghanistan with a viable trade product, increase our tax base, and open up new way of defeating the Taliban AND Al Qaeda.
But nobody wants to touch that solution....for what I believe are stupid reasons.
Finally, the concept that the Taliban or Al Qaeda can be defeated is the wrong way to view things. But it is the only way the US populace is able to conceive an outcome. Terror will NEVER be removed. It's always been a cottage industry for the poor and disaffected of the world. In fact, many of the last and most troubled members or hangers on of the IRA and Baader Meinhof had contact with these organizations in the Middle East for years prior to 9/11.
It's silly and misguided to think we can do anything to alter disturbed mentalities.
At the end of the day, I support the surge for the time being because it can produce some results if managed properly, just like it did in Iraq.
I think calling the 18 month timeline was ridiculous and the Taliban is very patient. Just wait this out for 18 months and slowly reinfiltrate? No problem.
In the meantime, minor guerrilla action to kill a few infidels? Worth the bodies on their side...
what is needed is a true "hearts and minds" campaign which is run aggressively.
But that won't happen either.
We're doomed there not because we're there, but because we have no political will at the top. You need a strong leader to make strong decisions. Not a community organizer who is hoping to party with reformed enemies in 2 years.
"...there is NO CLEARLY VIABLE solution to the problem."
I disagree. If the problem is defined not as How can we control the world to make sure no one anywhere can plan and/or implement an aggressive act against the U.S.? but rather How can we limit, anywhere in the world, the number of implemented aggressive acts against the U.S., then we already know how to do that.
The current strategy of conquering a nation that happens to harbor some terrorists who attack within the U.S. (which the Taliban are not - they are strictly local assholes), and then occupying that nation, and then building numerous massive American military bases in that nation, and then building an American-style political and economic culture, and then getting an eternally-pro-American non-corrupt government into power is NOT going to work in Afganistan and eats up many years of effort and is prohibitively expensive. It won't do anything about the type of terrorist attacks we got in the first Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing. Terrorism will still happen.
However, a less-ambitious two-step anti-terror program is already available whenever we are ACTUALLY ATTACKED or ACTUALLY TREATENED by Bin Laden types:
1. Send in the cruise missles and drones. If it's a few guys in specific locations, don't hold back and don't worry about collateral damage (it will cost many more innocent lives to invade the country).
2. If there are too many bad guys or they are protected by the country's military, then do a Desert Storm and destroy the military and kill, capture, or drive out the bad guys, and then - LEAVE IMMEDIATELY. If the bad guys reappear (the "we must occupy Afganistan forever if necessary to prevent the 'return' of Al Queda" anxiety) then repeat the above steps, beginning with #1.
If there really are that many terrorists out there with the intent and means to attack on U.S. soil, then we'll be doing these strikes and brief invasions a lot. But we will not be in anything even remotely similar to the decades of killing and wasteful spending represented by the Korean, Vietnamese, Iraqi, and Afgan Wars.
"It's silly and misguided to think we can do anything to alter disturbed mentalities."
Actually, there is a variety of practical and effective ways to alter such mentalities, 5.56, 7.62 NATO, and especially .50 Cal come to mind. Even the Air Force is advertising for reservists to fly model airplanes in a real-time video reality where they can reach out and touch someone in the same house vs. the same province.
The permanent alteration offends the legal and psychological professions, since they are berift of profitable prospects, but, well, you know...
Ned
Without access to the 'toppest' of secret information, knowledge and motives, I don't think anyone can say what we should do or not do. Well, one can but it's only then just conversation.
There is an agenda only a few know about, a machine that manufactures excuses why government does what it does, particularly regarding international powder kegs like war, oil, and money.
We the people are only getting a tiny bit of info passed to us by spin doctors but conspiracies aside, don't you think, really, that none of us know diddly squat? And never will?
Sudan offered to turn over OBL to the U.S. prior to 9/11 but President Clinton refused the offer. Wonder if Ole Willy would like to change that decision?
He's on (bad) tape saying "we didn't have a warrant." Probably stuck in the lawyers' Guild lap still supporting that decision and Holder's decision (that he informed Our President) to hold civilian trials in the heart of NYC. So 'ol Willie might want to be a hero, but he'd rather be rich.
Ned
If I give the Republican Party money, do they give it to you guys?