President Barack Obama has begun the process of withdrawal from Afghanistan, an undertaking he called the War of Necessity in 2009. Then the need to win in Afghanistan made it imperative to draw down in Iraq. President Obama said, “by moving forward in Iraq, we’re able to refocus on the war against al Qaeda and its extremist allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan”. Now the need to “focus on nation building at home” makes it necessary to withdraw from Afghanistan.
… we must invest in America’s greatest resource –- our people. We must unleash innovation that creates new jobs and industries, while living within our means. We must rebuild our infrastructure and find new and clean sources of energy. And most of all, after a decade of passionate debate, we must recapture the common purpose that we shared at the beginning of this time of war. For our nation draws strength from our differences, and when our union is strong no hill is too steep, no horizon is beyond our reach. America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home.
Advertisement
Unemployment, stagflation, deflation, inflation — you name it — the Four Horsemen of the Recession are riding out to do battle with the One. This is the new War of Necessity, at least if you want to stay in office after 2012. Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post had a roundup of reactions to the President’s speech. Most of them ask what most any observer might seek to know about a new project: ‘whatever happened to the old one?’ Especially when the old project made it important to curry favor with Pakistan and withdraw from Iraq in order to win? Marco Rubio hit the nail on the head when asked how the planned withdrawal relate to winning in Afghanistan:
“After a decade of fighting, the American people are weary of war. Facing massive unemployment and a growing national debt, they are weary of the effort’s cost. So am I. But the answer to a bad situation is not to make it worse. And I have always believed that a troop withdrawal plan based not on progress towards our ultimate goal, but rather on a desire to hit certain numbers, would be a tragic mistake.
“Yes, American troops need to leave Afghanistan, but they should do so pursuant to a plan that accomplishes our vital goal. I hope that in the days to come, the President will more clearly articulate how his troop withdrawal plan does that.”
Poor Marco Rubio. He’s still asking someone who went to the store if he has anything to show for the money he spent. You don’t ask questions like that any more. Rubio doesn’t realize that the withdrawal and victory are not necessarily related, any more than going through a checkout and having the goods you paid for in your hand are. You just walk through checkouts because strolling is pleasant.
“Winning” is no longer part of vocabulary of statesmanship. Neither is retreat. One pundit argued that President Obama just avoids calling things wars so that he can neither win nor lose. Today it is all about touring along on the grand road to progress. Just as withdrawing from Iraq was “moving forward”, the President’s drawdown plan in Afghanistan was titled “the way forward”. But to the old-fashioned it is a retreat; and every American allies understands it clearly to be so. The Guardian reports that every ally will soon begin to leave.
The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, who has 4,000 troops in Afghanistan, said: “France will begin a gradual withdrawal of reinforcement troops sent to Afghanistan, in a proportional manner and in a calendar comparable to the withdrawal of American reinforcements.”
The German defence minister, Guido Westerwelle, who has 4,800 troops in Afghanistan, echoed the French, saying he hoped “to be able to reduce our own troop contingent for the first time” by the end of the year. Poland, which has 2,500 troops, is also to reduce its presence this year, according to the country’s head of security, General Stanislaw Koziej.
It goes without saying that the 8th century Taliban will have also no trouble understanding that the “way forward” ==”retreat” and act accordingly. Hindered by the lack of modern political correctness, they will advance as their foes withdraw and achieve that illusory state of “victory” which modern statesmen are so dismissive of. Unlike Western leaders who are their immeasurable superiors, the Taliban aim to get the hardtack and salt beef they paid for, and consequently they will.
Under other circumstances a withdrawal from Afghanistan might be a good thing if it allowed the US to refocus its resources on the real center of gravity of its enemies. But those too, alas seem to have vanished from the strategy-less landscape of Barack Obama. The possible transformation of Middle East into a virtual cauldron of Islamic states, the collapse of Yemen and the newly revealed perfidy of Pakistan — all earth-shaking events which have all occurred seemingly without mental impact on the President — are not fit foci for his effort.
Even the tactical question of withdrawal have been glossed over. JCS Chairman Mike Mullen testified that the reductions were “more aggressive and incur more risk” than was necessary. They are an extraordinary, but muted rebuke of the President’s decision, which as Robert Kagan at the Washington Post conveys that military leaders know that President Obama’s decision is a disaster.
Make no mistake, however. The entire military leadership believes the president’s decision is a mistake, and especially the decision to withdraw the remainder of the surge forces by September 2012. They will soldier on and do their best, but as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, put it, in characteristic understatement, they believe the decision will increase the risk to the troops and increase the chancethat the mission will not succeed. It bears repeating that the deadline imposed by the president has nothing to do with military or strategic calculation. It has everything to do with an electoral calculation. President Obama wants those troops out two months before Americans go to the voting booth.
But what is truly disastrous is not the withdrawal in itself, though that may be risky for both the retreating troops and to the supporters they have left behind. The actual catastrophe lies in the complete inability of the administration to pursue any kind of long term, strategically sound action policy. When considering any challenge it can weigh matters in only one balance: how to win the next election. Health care policy, international relations and military policy are all measured by this crude and self-serving yardstick.
This creates a very destructive decision rule which manifests itself as a low cunning that is paradoxically good at calculating at playing for baubles while oblivious to the destruction real value. It is the politics of burning Van Goghs in the street for 5 minutes of bonfire warmth. It is a political attitude of utmost contempt toward the governed, based on the conviction that voters can always be persuaded to sell out their birthright for a “mess of pottage”. And sad to say it works often and well. Will Rogers once said that “the short memories of American voters is what keeps our politicians in office”. But every now and again a truly catastrophic President comes along who may give the voters enough to remember at the next election. Kagan says Obama’s withdrawal is as likely to blow up as anything he has tried. Now with his first term more than half over, all the cans that he has kicked down the road, rather than disappearing over the horizon may now be gathering in a massive dump on the road to 2012.
Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, “biblical”?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes…
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!
Mayor: All right, all right! I get the point!
“No Way In” print edition at Amazon
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
My nic – “impeach obama” – says it all. I don’t have the words that expresses my outrage and depression at this murderous regime. I can’t use the word ‘administration’ in regards to obama, hillary the czars, etc., they are a maladministration.
If obama is not a communist and/or an islamist, he and his maladministration are the closest thing to it in my 60+ years.
Boss Tweed would be ashamed of this group of incompetents.
impeach obama
impeach obama now – ‘do it for the children’
‘when our union is strong no hill is too steep’
I know we are supposed to think “American Union” but why am I thinking UAW, SEIU, AFT, NEA?
I don’t like Obama. Given his incompetence, he has no business being President. His primary political base are the moonbats. By definition, anything that appeals to the moonbats will be harmful to the nation.
What’s the correct decision concerning Afghanistan? Al Qaeda flourished in Afghanistan under Taliban rule. Negotiating with the Taliban is not an option, i.e. it’s like negotiating with an Ebola virus. The Taliban will not go away as long as it has safe havens in Pakistan. This reminds me of the Viet Cong launching attacks from Cambodian safe havens. Most of us remember what happened after the Tet Offensive, i.e. the President declared “victory”, withdrew US forces from Vietnam and the country quickly fell to the communists. Okay, so we cut our loses in Afghanistan, the Taliban resumes control and allows al Qaeda to reestablish themselves within a failed state. Flush with victory, the Islamic fascists can resume their international terrorist offensive, i.e. more 9/11s. Is this an acceptable outcome? Counter argument: Allow the Islamic fascists to reestablish themselves in Afghanistan. The world recognizes Afghanistan as a failed state thus enabling the US and NATO to launch continuous bombing raids over the entire country. Consequently, Afghanistan is perpetually ruined (nice side effect is the poppy trade is curtailed). Is the cost of keeping Afghanistan under the Taliban a boiling mess cheaper than restricting the Taliban to Waziristan and killing high profile targets with Predators based from Afghanistan. My suspicion is that keeping the Taliban and al Qaedia in Waziristan and controlling them with Predators is cheaper than allowing them to take over Afghanistan and subjecting the country to continuous bombing.
When he flipped the bird on national TV, first to Hillary and then to McCain, that told us all we needed to know.
In Obamaworld, this is a win-win. Maybe it helps him with 4 more years to grind down the strength of our union, which is unlikely, but it at least allows him to do maximum damage before he gets the boot.
Last year, I read “The Story of the Malakand Field Force: An Episode of Frontier War”, by Winston Churchill. I had a sense of unease while reading it, because I saw the same feckless behaviour by the politicians of the day, the same “enemy one day, farmer the next”, the same shifting allegiances- all the same as today. In fact, other than the weapons used, I can’t tell much apart from the Taliban of 1898 and the various tribal forces allied with them and the Taliban of today. The same goes for the politicians involved.
Eggplant #3,
You raise an important point- and an equally important question. Can the Taliban be contained? Al Qaeda can, but from my reading of the Malakand Field Force, I can see that the Taliban will be much more difficult to control. The tribal nature of the region and the shifting alliances complicates things greatly. The real danger is that the Taliban will win a couple quick victories against the Afghan government, and the tribes will fall over themselves to join up. That’s when we’ll see if the soldiers of the Afghan army are more loyal to it or to their tribes.
It would be tempting to say “if only Sir Bindon Blood would be here”, but even he couldn’t beat the constraints of the modern politician. At least he could have some free movement when the telegraph stations were being set up closer to the front lines.
impeach obama @ 1 said:
“Boss Tweed would be ashamed of this group of incompetents.”
As a crooked politician, Boss Tweed was extremely competent. I suspect Boss Tweed would see Obama as an opportunity.
Impeaching Obama is obviously not an option while the Democrats control the Senate. There is a very dangerous scenario where Obama is reelected in 2012 and the Republicans gain control of the Senate while retaining control of the House. Impeaching a recently reelected President with the MSM chanting that this is a subversion of democracy would be precisely the situation that could lead to a civil war. Especially if the economy had just double-dipped and there were lots of angry unemployed people out on the streets. The best scenario is to expel Obama from office in 2012.
We can’t win in Afghanistan because our enemy isn’t in Afghanistan. Our enemy is in Pakistan; this thing we call the “Taliban” is whatever Pashtun tribesmen that want to earn a little extra cash causing trouble for the infidels for the ISI.
The ground troops we have in Afghanistan are just targets. They put some pressure on the ISI mercenaries and gather some intelligence, but having walk around, get sniped at or blown up with IEDs while begging the locals to not help the ISI mercenaries and treating their anal gonorrhea doesn’t help much.
We need as few troops on the ground as are needed to support drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some advisors, minimal conventional troops, some special ops troops, and some CIA paramilitaries. But we should be prepared to do this after being kicked out all together, with whatever operations can be run from an aircraft carrier.
Our strategic bind is that Afghanistan, as currently structured, can’t sustain the force levels that doctrine requires.
Further, the Taliban are not deemed natives by the locals. Far from it, they’re hated, feared and resented.
They are but a puppet glove for the ISI shakedown machine.
To go after this dynamic requires us to drastically reduce our need — of Pakistan.
So it’s all good: get NATO out of mission creep. They are all mouth and no trigger.
Completely useless.
Other projects that are pure pipe dream: educating girls, fighting the opium war, building an electric grid, drilling for deep water…. just too many instances of mission creep.
The ONE thing that would really help, literacy for Afghani men, is only now really taking off.
——
Lytro technology is going to revolutionize security cameras. When mounted on drones or aerostats, Lytro will be awesome.
I assume that some such plenoptic camera scheme has already been tried. Lytro will apparently reduce the weight and expense dramatically.
Quantity has a quality all its own.
Consequences. It is a word not found in the leftist vocabulary.
The inevitable consequence of a pullout will be a strengthening of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The Left, if it cares at all, is overjoyed. The only question is when will this abandonment of the WOT come back to bite us. Will the pullout be messy and bite us right away, will AQ hold it’s fire until after the election in ’12, or will the bite come some time in between?
One silver lining is once free of protecting our troops in the stan, we will be free to strike the Paki’s. And from a political perspective, sometimes things, like our situation vis a vis Islam, will have to get worse, sometimes much worse, for the situation to crystalize in the greater public’s mind to galvanize support for a serious war on Jihadist Islam.
.
“Rebuilding our infrastructure”? What a crock. I’m from Cook (“Crook”) County Illinois (which encompasses Chicago)and I’m hear to tell ya that rebuilding infrastructure is just about all they do around here. In these parts we joke, bitterly, that Chicago and its environs have but two seasons: winter, and road repair. As soon as the weather starts to get passably warm the repair crews are out in full force on multiple roads, ripping up asphalt, closing lanes,and thereby creating massive traffic jams every day, for months on end. The amazing thing is, you rarely see anyone on these crews actually working; in fact, you rarely see anyone at all. They show up, rip apart the roads, then disappear for days at a time, leaving their equipment parked in the closed-off lanes that under repair. Also amazing is that many of these roads are subjected to a fresh regime of repairs just a couple of years, if that, after a previous repair job.
One gets the idea that this is all just make-work for the unions. Gee, ya think?
Every time I hear politicians throw around phrasing to the effect that we need to improve our infrastructure, I have to suppress an impulse to reach for my pistol.
Well according to MEMRI, the Taliban declared victory yesterday. And who can gainsay them?
“In an article in an Urdu-language quarterly magazine published by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Taliban commander Umer Khalid accused the “Western media and the international media working under its influence” of engaging in covering up the biggest news story of the day – that “the U.S. has been defeated in Afghanistan.”"
http://tinyurl.com/5rday72
THE END OF EMPIRE?
In the Christian year 9, Publius Quintilius Varus led three Legions, the XVII, XVIII and XIX, accompanied by auxiliaries and women and children, through the Teutoburg Wald to winter quarters. Ambushed by German tribes led by Arminius, the Romans were annihilated. When he heard the news, Augustus cried, “Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!” The Romans never again ventured north of the Rhine or Danube. Are we looking at the same thing? Have we, like the Romans, reached the high water mark of empire? Will withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq be the end of nation building, the end of engagement in the Muslim world? Will our policy no longer be forward leaning but reactive? I sure hope so.
Afghanistan is not a State
And they don’t really care
The tribe, the clan, all else they hate
They do not want us there
We pour in cash, we get guys killed
For nothing I can see
It matters not the roads we build
A country it won’t be
We tried to change the Islam world
To bring them up to snuff
And for our pains got rockets hurled
I say enough’s enough
Just let them stew in their own juice
And keep our powder dry
And if they turn their rockets loose
Just blow them all sky high
So many things wrong with Afghanistan:
**logistics—enough said
**”nation-building—a “nation” is many things, eg common language, institutions, laws, etc. You can’t “build” a nation by a construction project, nor teaching people how to imitate your way of life. This has to occur bottom-up on location. People usually want to live the way they’ve always lived, may indeed change generation-by-generation incrementally, but you can’t assume that what they really want is to live just like us.
**Taliban/Al Queda—if I’ve got it right, the Talibs want to control Afghanistan, not do another World Trade Center. AQ is our enemy and we seemed to have lumped them together. To the extent that the two forces cooperated we should have concentrated on splitting them as much as possible, making it clear it was AQ we were after and Afghanistan’s internal affairs were of secondary interest to us.
**Creating Little Americas at every base, with the grand PX, movies, a little piece of home overseas. This massive approach is typical of the US, esp the Army and leads to massive, cumbersome installations and organizational constipation (see “logistics” above).
Now we can’t do it anymore, after doing ‘way too much. It will look like a failure when, in fact, AQ has been hurt badly there. If the Talibs recover, the first time a woman is stoned to death there will be lots of trouble. If we’d been content to knock AQ down, and make sure they stay down, we’d be where we are now at a lot less cost.
“Most of us remember what happened after the Tet Offensive, i.e. the President declared “victory”, withdrew US forces from Vietnam and the country quickly fell to the communists.”
That’s not how I remember it. Shortly after Tet Abrams replaced Westmoreland, instituting a clear-and-hold strategy that proved much more effective than his predecessor’s search-and-destroy strategy of attrition. The brilliant victory achieved by ARVN forces (with the help of U.S. air power) over the invading PAVN in 1972 was attributable in large measure to this change in strategy and the results thereby achieved, and seemed to bode well for the future of the South. It is important to note in this regard that the bulk of American forces, particularly ground forces, had by then been withdrawn. The degringolade that took place in Vietnam occurred after 1972 and was not the result per se of the American troop withdrawal.
Victory in Afghanistan? “The G-d that walked” has never, ever, ever been interested in an American victory in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or anywhere. A man who sat in Rev Wright’s church for 20 years and who had Bill Ayers as his political mid-wife is interested only in America’s defeat, or if that is not possible, America’s weakening. To be fair to the man apparently 40% of all Americans are either on board with this or are on board as long as it keeps the checks coming.
The real problem is not so much Obama the man and his politics as it is leftism. Leftism must be confronted, called out by name, discredited and then destroyed. Every attack upon liberty, upon the principles of individual sovereignty has been orchestrated by the left. Until this vile cancer is destroyed, defeating Obama in 2012 will be more like a terminal cancer patient being visited by “Dr. Feel Good”. The doctor’s pills may give the patient a moment of joy but it has done nothing to change the underlying disease.
Eggplant #6
My concern is with the 2012 elections. The dems are well-known as the party of the ‘creative’ voter – get out the ‘graveyard’ vote. With the Holder injustice dept, who will stop them? Breitbart might expose them, but who will stop them from committing voter fraud?
Walt #12
When GWB refused to name the enemy and had a WOT that was the beginning and ending of any possible positive outcome. How do you fight a tactic rather than an enemy?
Refusing to acknowledge that Islam is the problem and not the solution leaves you to fight the WOT. Not all or even the majority of muslims are our enemy but Islam most assuredly is.
With our feckless SOS and the UN Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle
look for new ‘enemies’ of the people, ie., Israel.
It’s a military rout of necessity. Once you turn your back to the enemy, the way backward is the way forward. And you’d better get moving “backward in a forward manner” expeditiously!
The “Afghanistan Surge” had domestic political goals not military or geo-strategic ones. Obama did not bother concealing the fact. He announced the “prevent defeat” surge and the “allow defeat” withdrawal at the same time. I marveled he was not at least holding out for Bin Laden before scheduling the great skedaddle. But, who knows, maybe they did a deal. In any case, I was a bit skeptical of the plan (more than a bit, actually) from the start.
Presidents who lose major wars don’t get reelected. Presidents who fight controversial wars “to win” often win close elections. LBJ had to drop out in 1968 because his lack of resolve lost the support of most Americans (He could have won the nomination but not the support of the left which, having lost much of the middle, he would need to win in November.)
So Obama did not want to lose the war until after his reelection, but wanted to be “re-routing” the troops out of Afghanistan in 2012 to keep the support of the Left. Was this a cynical plan? Yep. But the press corps was more cynical because they let it unfold without comment (and maybe even helped a bit?). Of course now the Taliban will want to “chase us out” so look for Truck Bombs and assassins in our future — all of which will be under-reported in the US.
It will be up to the Pashtuns now. Will they accept the Tailiban and the money that comes with them or stick with the Afghan government? Is it time for another civil war?
Obama’s withdrawal timing, while utterly craven, is understandable calculus. A large swath of American society is quickly bored and easily distracted. It has become accustomed to abandoning responsibility and avoiding consequences. It can rationalize almost anything with its debased language and liquid standards. It prizes fashionability above almost all else, and 9/11 was a decade ago. Symbolism and memetics got this unknown entity elected. Why not bet on it happening again?
A Nobody mentioned Churchill’s Malakand book – well worth reading, and freely downloadable.
In any conventional sense, we cannot “win” anything in Afghanistan, anymore than we can “win” the war against forest fires. All we can do is set up a containment system, then minimise the possibility within the system of a fire starting up, and then also be prepared to quickly and effectively suppress the ones that inevitably do.
For the word fire, we could substitute here “training camp” or “any other sufficiently suspicious activity we can spot from above”
It really would not be difficult to convince them that any “fire” that occurred would be instantly snuffed out by a massive pounding. And we also let them know that, if they all stay home and keep their noses clean, we’ll leave them alone. Rubble doesn’t cause trouble, right?
The idea that we are going to transform those tribes into something congruent to Western culture is preposterous.
The fact that we’ve been trying for ten years is horrifying and sickening. Especially since we know how badly it’s worked out for everyone else who’s ever tried.
Here’s what I know, or think I know:
9/11 was a direct consequence of us abandoning Afghanistan to its fate in the first Bush and Clinton years. What will happen if there is a second Taliban takeover?
While Americans may be “war weary” (that would include me), this withdrawal is not going to have a dramatically positive effect for Obama, because the Afghanistan thing ain’t WWII or even Vietnam. The withdrawal is likely to be met by a collective national shrug and sigh of relief, unless it coincides with a dramatic and measurable improvement in the economy.
Afghanistan is sitting on a huge trove of strategic mineral deposits, recently discovered by American geologists. it will be China and Russia who benefit from these finds, not Americans or even Afghans (the Chinese like to bring in their own labor).
Classic isolationism in these times is a very stupid and dangerous proposition. Like it or not, our power and prosperity rest in part on our long reach, big effective Navy, and international economic partnerships. None of this means we have to have troops in Europe or be fighting numerous wars (or whatever we’re supposed to call them), but id does mean we have to stay engaged internationally, including having a physical presence in many places all over the globe, with the miltiary and economic clout to back it up.
18. Vinny Vidivici
Symbolism and memetics got this unknown entity elected. Why not bet on it happening again?
You may be proven right next year, and my observations at #20 may turn out to be obsolete, but I doubt it. Time will tell.
R/14—I remember it the same way. For too long we found ourselves fighting in the same spots, over and over (after all, if we killed enough of ‘em, they’d quit, right?) The Marine Combined Action Platoons were also effective, very basic low-tech fighting.
VV/18—Yes, we have become like our leaders (or is it the other way around). Looking for the easy way, triumph of form over substance, the quick fix and payoff. Nothing lasting happens this way. My children, all middle-aged, seem rather materialistic to me, tho they all work hard and play square; they have good character yet seem over-fascinated with bigger-than-necessary houses, etc. All their friends are the same. You don’t get a quick fix in a war.
The real underlying issue is resurgent Islams appeal to unhappy folks. Money pours in by the ton from oil sales by the state and the people that result from breeding have absolutly nothing to do and now where to go so they get made at the west. If the modern industrialized world (N. America and Europe/India/China) drills and fracs to the point that mid-east oil becomes less important then there is no money for the Wahabis and Persians to drive Jihad. Turn off the oil money and jihad goes to sleep. And wind is not the answer. Solve the energy problem rationally and jihad drys up. Until then, ruble doesn’t cause trouble.
People talk about the Taliban but from what I read they are the Pushtan tribe, whose area of occupation is both sides of the Afghan,Pakistan border. In ye ancient days when they in particular got overpopulated and started messing with the lowlanders they would be controlled by wiping out some villages down to the last living creature. When they lost family names entire and had to start worrying about having highland neighbors swoop down and take those they didn’t kill into slavery, they’d start concentrating on protection what they had instead of trying to steal from everybody else. I think there is some literature about Alexander the Great doing that.
I’d preferred the french forces in Africa !
how the Afghani soldiers see the western soldiers, and vice-versa
http://tinyurl.com/67sb4va
It’s a waste of time to stay there, the people doesn’t us !
the people doesn’t like us
A friend who visited Afghanistan when the Soviets were there told me the only way for the us to fix this is buy the drug crop at local price plus 10%. The locals are happy. We then burn it. Probably cheaper and more stable than what we have been doing
‘when our union is strong no hill is too steep’ – P0TUS
‘when our intersection is weak every hole is too deep’ – me
‘winning!’ – Charlie Sheen
“In the garden, when the roots are strong, all will be well in the spring” – Chauncey Gardner
–
As far as Afghanistan goes if we’re not going to do it right anyway we might as well skidaddle. We’ve made *a* point even if was not *the* point. Start getting ready for next time, and just wait for it, it won’t be long.
As for those who sacrificed on this road – it wasn’t entirely in vain, and will be further redeemed as we continue along the way.
The Osama bin Laden bounce has officially ended… Obama’s RCP average just went negative, refer to:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
If the economy collapses after QE-II ends then Obama is probably toast. The remaining unknown will be the size and duration of the economic surge after they begin QE-3. If they time QE-3 right and the MSM cheers loud enough then maybe they can fish Obama out of the trash can.
Afghanistan remains the same shit hole. As Ann Coulter says,they’ve still got more goats than flushing toilets.
And, hopefully, Americans, by and large have learned, those stinking tribal lunatics love to put Americans over a barrel, and steal our wallets.
We should have used Agent Orange! We should have destroyed as many poppy fields as we could. And, then we’d have been asked to leave. And, we could have done so, “politely.”
Current DoD analysis says that there are less than 100 AQ operatives in Afghanistan.
We need to take out troops and treasure home, leave a small base for emergencies and do a deal with Russia for a corridor to supply and /or augment that base as needed–and ditch Pakistan as a supply corridor.
Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires it was for–
Persia Empire
Alexander the Greats Empire
The British Empire
The Soviet Empire
At some point we will have sit at the table with China, Russia, Iran and India to craft a joint strategy to pacify Afghanistan
–none of these states wants a narco-terrorist state on their borders or near borders.
Talking of that–we have an emerging narco terrorist state –Mexico-on our own border
29. Eggplant: “If they time QE-3 right and the MSM cheers loud enough then maybe they can fish Obama out of the trash can.”
I wouldn’t count on it. (not saying you are of course) The only people who might buy into a QE3 are either those who have no idea how an economy actually works and those shilling for a bailout for personal reasons. I believe most working Americans no longer buy that crap-sandwich. They keep telling us they have the world’s biggest rat but we know it to be a possum.
For the record, while I am hopeful, I have little actual faith in either party to actually do what we all know must be done- namely, cut up the credit cards and tighten our belts to the bone.
Okay. If the Taliban come back, Afghans who have radios and music CD’s, will have to bury them, again, in their back yards.
When the terror returns, no matter what photos journalists bring back with them … to show us women being shot to death in soccer fields … won’t resonate a hell of a lot.
Well, Obama is right about one thing – the real war is here.
25. Marie Claude
It would be worth everyone’s while to read the summary and some of the details at your link.
It’s quite an eye opener.
It also indicates that the surge has brought plenty of downside with it.
For all of their stupidities — at least the Afghanis have enough moxie to know that the real terrorist state is Pakistan.
It’s the real enabler of AQ and Mullah Omar.
“Our strategic bind is that Afghanistan, as currently structured, can’t sustain the force levels that doctrine requires.”
Doctrine dictates 692,000 troops. I don’t think our army is that large. If it is it’s not by much.
I’ve always thought Afghanistam would best serve as a hunting reservation. For Jihadists of all stripes. 20,000 Marines could be supplied by air for almost forever. Use it as an advance training ground. Life fire type. Let the Jihadi’s know we will be there for the next century or so. 3 generations at least.
If they want to kill infidels, here we are. We will even provide the body bags. Eventually, the moslims will decide that if Allah wanted us gone, we would leave. Since we didn’t Allah wants us to hang around and shoot Jihadis.
I suspect the PC crowd will have a problem with that plan.
The real problem is that the way the Cbumbler is going about it will ENCOURAGE the nutters.
Meanwhile, the Duck is hanging on. Has Los Vegas posted odds yet on who goes first Obama or the Duck?
#24 toadold,
You are very close- as the Taliban are Pushtun- but there is one key distinction between them and the average folk. Churchill gave an excellent description of the Taliban in his book:
“Their superstition exposes them to the rapacity and tyranny of
a numerous priesthood–”Mullahs,” “Sahibzadas,” “Akhundzadas,”
“Fakirs,”–and a host of wandering Talib-ul-ilms, who correspond with
the theological students in Turkey, and live free at the expense of the
people. More than this, they enjoy a sort of “droit du seigneur,” and no
man’s wife or daughter is safe from them. Of some of their manners and
morals it is impossible to write. As Macaulay has said of Wycherley’s
plays, “they are protected against the critics as a skunk is protected
against the hunters.” They are “safe, because they are too filthy to
handle, and too noisome even to approach.”"
But what of the Pashtun themselves? Again, Churchill gives us a ready description that will sound depressingly familiar:
“The inhabitants of these wild but wealthy valleys are of many tribes,
but of similar character and condition. The abundant crops which a warm
sun and copious rains raise from a fertile soil, support a numerous
population in a state of warlike leisure. Except at the times of sowing
and of harvest, a continual state of feud and strife prevails throughout
the land. Tribe wars with tribe. The people of one valley fight with
those of the next. To the quarrels of communities are added the combats
of individuals. Khan assails khan, each supported by his retainers.
Every tribesman has a blood feud with his neighbor. Every man’s hand is
against the other, and all against the stranger.”
That’s why I suggested reading “The Story of the Malakand Field Force”. The way in which the force battled the enemy, and how they bought a several decade quiet period on the frontier. But even in 1898 there were objections to several measures taken (including the burning of houses and filling of wells)- I suspect that would be all the louder today.
In the Big Game–
The Dragon–China is looking for a land based corridor to the oil/gas rich ME to avoid our US Navy dominance.
We need to talk with Iran, Russia, China and India to call the bluff before it becomes more real.
It is all about a simple, two word strategy, “Revolutionary Defeatism”, trademarked in 1917 by Lenin and Trotsky. There has been a consistant patern here for three years, for any willing to believe their eyes. And feckless commanders who would rather sacrifice their army and country than defy the shibboleth of civilian authority. Even the noblest principle can be misused or carried to foolish extreme. A coup would not be desirable, but there are still mass resignations.
Robert Kagan at the WaPo said:
“President Obama wants those troops out two months before Americans go to the voting booth.”
This is absurd since the voluntary military is decidedly conservative.
In every election I have witnessed the Democrats have wanted to suppress the military vote. Stuff like the postmark was not valid. On this subject the Democratic voters and their leadership are truly sickening.
Don Rodrigo #20:
Here is what I think I know:
1. After the collapse of the USSR our interest in Afghanistan and a bunch of other worthless places disappeared for the same reason our interest in New Guinea disappeared after we invaded the Philippines. However, unlike New Guinea, we were never there in the first place.
2. Pakistan desperately needed a place to send the radicals that the Saudi-funded madrassas were producing and also needed a superpower to be involved in Afghanistan so they could skim off the gravy transiting their country. That and the usefulness of nuts with AK’s as an instrument of both local and international power led to the Taliban.
3. OBL and his ilk – Arabs – found Afghanistan a useful hiding place and the Taliban useful idiots.
4. Decades of Soft Power response to Hard Danger of terrorism combined with the general wussifiation of the USA made us look like an easy mark to OBL. Airline pilots were not only not allowed to carry guns they were threatened with jail if they did not turn their airplanes over to hijackers. In Somalia we came not to fight, stayed not to fight, and left when the fighting started. In Kosovo and Bosnia we were oh so very careful not to kill anyone on the other side when we bombed in 1995 and 1999.
5. The attack of 9/11/01 had exactly as much to do with Afghanistan as the Northern Pacific ocean had to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor.
6. Our involvement on the ground in Afghanistan had great benefits to Pakistan and to Al Queda – and that was all. Pakistan got to come down off the porch and run with the big dog and Al Queda got to be top cat with the terrorists.
7. For Day 1 after 9/11/01 I have always said that we should have issued demands to the “government” of Afghanistan as to who we wanted delivered to us in chains and what areas we demanded free and unfettered access to. They would have turned us down just as they did for our lesser demands and within 24 hours our nuclear weapons should have scrubbed Kabul, Kandahar, and various other garden spots down to the bedrock. Cheap, easy, fast, and effective. The minerals would still be there when the radioactivity dies down. And as an extra added attraction every dictator in the word would have pulled a Kaddafy and asked us what we needed done.
Its a small quibble, but Wretchard has Obama’s priorities wrong.
Obama’s priorities are (in order of importance):
1) Socialized medicine.
2) Socialized energy.
3) Socialized everything else.
4) Getting re-elected.
5) Any foreign policy anywhere.
Granted he needs #4 to do 1, 2 and 3, but getting elected is only to serve his higher goals. You are correct that he doesn’t care at all about any other country – except maybe Israel, which he would like to disappear.
38. Victor
‘,,, We need to talk with Iran, Russia, China’
Are you from planet cuckoo?
before or after they blow up the ME?
f47 quoting Victor ‘,,, We need to talk with Iran, Russia, China’
Are you from planet cuckoo?
before or after they blow up the ME?”
This is idiotic. It’s true Russia has a vested interest in expensive oil, but not in an endless stream of money for the Caucasian jihadists which gets filtered through Turkish and UAE banks. Russia has quietly allied itself with Israel, though I can’t prove that Stuxnet was planted in Iran by Russian scientists. Most certainly though it has driven a wedge between old rivals Muscovy and Persia (ironically enough, this is why I don’t trust old ZBig, because he wants to endlessly play off the Islamic world against not merely the old Soviet Union but modern Russia as well). The Russian army is being trained to operate Israeli-built UAVs over the Caucuases. But that won’t stop most BCers and most anti-Russia lobby members in D.C. from portraying Russia as Israel’s eternal enemy.
Some BCers never learn…we’re the suckers spending all the blood, while they pick up the contracts. That’s what happened in Iraq, and I think it’s more likely to happen in Libya too when the Duck of Death is dead or run off. After all, BP was the single largest pre-war investor in Libya (and single largest donor to the Obama campaign in 2008). Moscow-based TNK BP now has the mother company by the gonads and is going to get into Libya alongside Gazprom and Lukoil.
Walt’s got it right — to hell with this empire. The GOP and the Tea Party owe John “we’re all Georgians now” McCain and Lindsey RINO “Congress should just shut up about Libya” Graham nothing. I don’t see any evidence that our military presence brings tangible economic benefits to anyone outside of the defense industry, the Pentagon or the Beltway. I wish the Tea Party would produce a primary challenger to Graham the same way they did to longtime perpetual war advocate McCain.
Ike created his doctrine of massive retaliation in no small part due to his anticipating the elements, both domestic and foreign, that wanted the U.S. to get involved in another land war in Asia shortly after the inconclusive bloody stalemate in Korea. Ike also directed his MIC farewell address to Kennedy. Too bad JFK was too busy to listen, contrary to Oliver Stone’s theory that he was killed for wanting to wind up our commitment in ‘Nam.
RWE @ 41 said:
“7. For Day 1 after 9/11/01 I have always said that we should have issued demands to the “government” of Afghanistan as to who we wanted delivered to us in chains and what areas we demanded free and unfettered access to. They would have turned us down just as they did for our lesser demands and within 24 hours our nuclear weapons should have scrubbed Kabul, Kandahar, and various other garden spots down to the bedrock. Cheap, easy, fast, and effective.”
If memory serves me correctly, George W. Bush did issue an ultimatum to the “government” of Afghanistan demanding the surrender of al Qaeda murderers. The Taliban made some humorous response to the effect that they would try Osama bin Laden under Islamic Law, i.e. they would have a sit-down party in celebration of al Qaeda’s success with Osama bin Laden as the guest of honor. Bush ignored their response and initiated our attack against Afghanistan. Nuking the Taliban would have been satisfying. Unfortunately China would have taken a dim view of having the fallout plume pass over their territory. Quite frankly, I think George W. Bush’s response was appropriate. I also think his decision to move hostilities to Iraq was appropriate after it became clear that Osama was laying low in Pakistan.
“In Kosovo and Bosnia we were oh so very careful not to kill anyone on the other side when we bombed in 1995 and 1999.”
This is a lie. NATO bombs killed hundreds of Serbian civilians, and thanks to our support for the mafia posing as the Kosovo Liberation Army, hundreds of Serbs were killed and thousands had to flee their homes as churches dating back to the 13th century were destroyed. All of which involved attacking a historic ally and rewarding people who later produced terrorists who wanted to attack our troops here in the U.S.
“5. The attack of 9/11/01 had exactly as much to do with Afghanistan as the Northern Pacific ocean had to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor.” At least this makes sense and is a point Wretchard has been making over and over.
MrX@44: After all, BP was the single largest pre-war investor in Libya (and single largest donor to the Obama campaign in 2008).
That part in parens is not true. BP donated $71,000. Goldman Sachs gave just under a million, right after Univ of California coming in at just over $1.5 million.
Even when Churchill wrote the Malakand Field Force, Afghanistan was only important as part of the Great Game. Nothing important came from Afghanistan, but much that was menacing came through it. It was always a highway for trouble, yet never the source of ultimate trouble itself.
When President Obama declared Afghanistan the “war of necessity” is was clear that he either did not realize it or willfully misrepresented things. Afghanistan was simply a place from which the real enemy launched an attack. Afghanistan was no more vital than any rock in the Pacific was in World War 2. The rocks only acquired importance in relationship to the campaign against the ultimate foe, the Empire of Japan.
The real war of necessity was defeating the force that came through Afghanistan, not Afghanistan itself. And what were those? They came from the Middle East and Pakistan, both our friends and our friends respectively.
Now we are told that the job is done, but were never told what the job was to begin with; who the enemy was, where its capital lay, what ideology it followed. Using the analogy of World War 2, if Henderson Field was worth taking in the first place, there would no point in giving it back. And it was only of value because there was an enemy behind it; and if that enemy as yet unidentified is still undefeated, it doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion that the “way forward” is nation building at home.
These are just disparate concepts strung together like beads on a string and its shameful to think the voters are held in such low esteem that someone would actually try to palm this gibberish off on anybody. But since it actually convinces Andrew Sullivan, there is still a market in suckers.
The striking thing about Churchill’s reportage in the Malakand Field Force, plus his two companion period pieces, the River War and From London to Ladysmith, about the Mahdi and the Boer Wars respectively, was how right the broad strategic view turned out to be. The large Colonial Wars at the end of the 19th Century are now forgotten. Today they are of interest for what they reveal about the greater storm just over the horizon; we know now that they felt different because they were the peripheral twitches of a far vaster and looming conflict.
In retrospect it is clear that neither Swat nor the Sudan were anything but the undercard to the main event. By the early 1900s old order was collapsing, not just in Europe, but everywhere. The Ottoman Empire — then the Muslim world — was collapsing. Russia was decaying and the British Empire was in decline. I think this was why the wars reported by Churchill felt different. They were not the triumphant gallops of yore; the old verities were gone.
The difference was that Churchill could connect the dots in a geopolitical sense. He saw the Khyber Pass and shuddered at what lay beyond it whereas Obama can look no further than the next election and another ice-cream cone.
But how would he think differently? Perhaps the President, like many people in the NGO and progressive communities have become so accustomed to think in slogans; so habituated at moving from sound bite to sound bite, so wrapped up in an artificial intellectual bubble that they exist in a kind of eternal historical present in which the year is always 1968.
I think Afghanistan was simply a place where the President could ‘demonstrate his resolve’ to that mythical voter audience the pollsters can measure to T and yet never comprehend by a single iota. That was the sum total of his strategic vision. That was its role. And having fulfilled its task as narrative it is time to ring the curtain down and move on.
And on and on. For that is what the race of progressive children do; they litter the landscape with half-eaten and wasted treats, casting away the each last untasted object of desire attracted by the next glittering bauble while, through the windows of this haunted castle, real monsters peer in unremarked through the opened doors.
Maybe that will be the epitaph of the Obama generation. Here passed those who saw no one but themselves and were unmindful of anything they didn’t want to see. “We are the people we’ve been waiting for”. Yes. And now come the things you never believed in.
Nations pursue their interests–they have no permanent friends or enemies–only permanent interests.
Kissinger in August 2010 called for a joint conference with Iran, Russia, America, India, Pakistan and Turkey to guide Afghanistan’s future.
It produces and exports 90% of the worlds heroin–that is destroying young people in Russia, China, etc and Europe.
It has a radical Islamic cult that threatens the western provinces of China.
Iran does not threaten America and Turkey is our agent to bring sensible Iranians to the table.
you can’t make war in a rural and tribal country tied to traditions, like you do with industrialised countries. each detail counts for a country like Afghanistan, like it did for Algeria in the fifties. If you lose population support, it the end, you can pour as many bombs you can, you will not win.
So, leave it to the Chinese, after all they are the only ones that benefit of the armies protection in Afghanistan, their mining investment there !
Wretchard @48: “And having fulfilled its task as narrative it is time to ring the curtain down and move on.”
Comrade O is the master showman, and the show must go on.
Mr. X #46:
I said we were careful. I did not say we were that good at it. We gave the appearance of being very careful not to kill anyone and especially in 1995 did things like crater runways and not hit the hangars. I was just reading how NATO was very careful to say in 1995 that its air attacks were not done in concert with Muslim and Croat ground force assaults and any benefit they derived from the air support was simply a coincidence. Shades of our Libyan involvement!
In 1999, we were unwilling to send in ground forces and the Kosovo Liberation Army was a joke, so airpower had to do some different things, like hit Belgrade. In reality I think it was none of our business if someone shoots his next door neighbor.
Eggplant #45:
Yes, that is exactly right, what I meant by the “lesser demands” we made. And I agree that W. Bush’s emphasis on Iraq was approriate – although claims that we diverted forces from Afghanistan to Iraq are wrong. We did not have any real forces there in the first place. Read the book “Kill Bin Laden” for info on the siuation there.
As for nuking Afghanistan in October 2001, no one would have uttered a peep. Eevryone knew that someone was going to get the crap blown out of them and were hoping they were not on the list. We probably should have sunk the whole Red Chinese Navy just based on their visiting journalists cheering when they saw the airplanes hit the WTC on TV. Instead we just told them they were to leave the country ASAP.
RWE @ 41: I agree about the nukes, but I wouldn’t have killed so many. Nothing felt so good as the news in late September 2001 that we were testing the klystrons for the first time in 30 years. “Oh, good”, I thought, “we’re dusting off the big boys”.
Well, Kandahar and Kabul would have caused us many problems from the usual suspects. But 4 W-88s on Tora Bora as soon as OBL was clearly ID’d there, and we wouldn’t have heard a peep from AfPak again for many, many years.
The only other time I would have done it was Fallujah in April 2004, right after the contractors were crucified on the bridge. I would have surrounded the city, ordered women and children out through checkpoints, and then turned it into glass.
Carol @ 33: “If the Taliban come back, Afghans who have radios and music CD’s, will have to bury them, again, in their back yards.”
Honestly, who gives a shit?
If the “Afghans” (there really are no such people) can’t institute their own liberal state, then they just have to live in the muck with their (overwhelming majority of) barbarian neighbors. And, you know what? If they had music CDs, it would probably be some savage and nihilistic Western crap which we are going to eventually have to destroy here, anyway.
“Don’t give a shit” says it all.
What stops when we pull out … is the CIA’s ability to hand out hundred-dollar-bills to dope peddlers.
The other lesson? It’s freaky how tribal people tell themselves apart from all their surroundings. They fight other tribes like the dickens.
Yes, they’ll be left with 8 lane highways. But no parts to fix their trucks. So transportation will revert to goats.
Obama has even shorter coattails than Jimmy Carter!
Americans? When 2012 rolls around the most terrified politicians in the world will be democraps, running. Then? A few republicans who can smell their constituents anger. Just go and ask Orin Hatch!
My guess? I think we will see a presidential ballot with at least ten choices. (208 had 10. Cynthia McKinney was on it. And, so was Ralph Nader.) Nader will be there, again. Because he wants to out-do Harold Stassen.
And, if Palin is running as an Independent, under the label ONE NATION … all bets are off. Pundits will be committing suicide on TV.
And now come the things you never believed in.
oh i like that!
but hey it’s already happened, we’ve already got one in the white house.
like the Star Trek crew on what turned out to be the vacation planet … only it ain’t no vacation …
W: “Now we are told that the job is done, but were never told what the job was to begin with; who the enemy was, where its capital lay, what ideology it followed.”
The enemy is any nation or group possessing a self-serving governmental collectivist ideology – where the ruling collectivizers – like the Pigs of Animal Farm – are “more equal than others.” The enemy is despotic collectivist oligarchy its self – whether Ancient, Medieval Christian, Marxist, Fascist or Islamo-Fascist.
The job won’t be done until the American Revolution becomes a Universal Revolution built on the equal unalienable rights of all individuals to their life, their liberty, and the fruit of their own labor in pursuit of happiness.
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual… All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.” Thomas Jefferson
“Current DoD analysis says that there are less than 100 AQ operatives in Afghanistan.”
The day before the Battle of the Bulge started Military Intelligence at Bradley’s headquarters Told the 28th Division commander that across from him the Germans had maybe 100 men, a dozen guns and one mule. So the next day, after 3000+ German guns opened up, the General commanding the 29th called HQ and said; “they’re working the poor mule to death”.
My point here is estimates of the enemy’s strength are NEVER correct. The fact is they (military intelligence) has no idea how many AQ types there are. They either make a WAG (wild assed guess) or they tell the politicians what they want to hear. So you can take that 100 AQ with a grain of salt. Large grain. Several in fact. It wouldn’t surprise me to hear the AQ recruited 100 new members today. Out of 1 Billion Muslims 100 isn’t that far a reach.
Meanwhile, once the Obomination is gone and the crazy socialists get ran out of town, the economy will pick up. After that it will be time for a national dialogue on America’s position visa vie the rest of the world.
The half steppin we have been doing since 1945 isn’t working out so well.
Do we go Isolationist or muscle up and do Manifest destiny?
The USA has the military strength to do just about anything we want so long as we remember that if your goal is taking Vienna, TAKE VIENNA!
The way to stop Islamic terrorism is to establish a tit for tat program. Every time there is an Islamic terrorist attack on the US, it’s people or property, flatten a Mosque. Not any mosque but a mosque that preaches Jihad. Muslims aren’t stupid, they are ignorant. They will figure it out. Flatten the Mosque during prayer service Friday. That is when the Mulllads make most of their money. Anybody that goes to worship in a Jhidi Mosque takes a chance on dying for Allah. Get them BEFORE they strap on the suicide vest. Make a list of targeted Mosques. Publish it. Let those worshipping decide if they are feeling lucky that day
As far as Pakistan, put a Blockade on them. Sea, Air and land. For a month or two.
The international version of; ‘Since you aren’t playing nice with others, go sit in the corner’.
Carol @ 55: “So transportation will revert to goats.”
At least they’ll have a date for Saturday night…
wretchard:
Afghanistan is a backwater. It always has been and it always will be. Invading Afghanistan is rather like invading Siberia, Patagonia, or Wyoming.
The interesting this about Afghanistan is that it has often been quite peaceful under various empires. Various Persian dynasties have ruled it for centuries. The Bactrian Greeks ran a Buddhist state there. The only problem with controlling Afghanistan is that it is nearly impossible to defend from outside attack – especially from the north.
As rustic as Afghanistan is, it is possible for an outside force to control that territory while relying upon local suppliers. Stratfor estimates that each gallon of gasoline supplied to our military in Afghanistan costs $400. That is unacceptable. In my estimation, even locally made opium-based biodiesel would cost less than that!
In Pakistan, it has been shown that anti-Americanism is strongest among the richest, best educated, and most affluent; pro-Americanism and hatred of terrorists is strongest amongst the poor. So guess who our foreign aid subsidizes? Our enemies, of course. Little if any money trickles through. I think the situation is similar in Afghanistan, where the rich hate us and take our money.
One of the keys to ensuring victory in Afghanistan is to promote the welfare of classes of people who like us and undermine those who hate us. People who support the Taliban should be stripped of their lands, which would then be given to poor homesteaders. Those who support us should get contracts to supply our forces with food, energy, and basic ammunition. Regardless of whether our forces are officially U.S. Military, they can stay indefinitely in Afghanistan if we find means to supply them in situ.
It would still be expensive to subsidize locally supplied forces, but they would be considerably cheaper than ferrying supplies from the United States into and out Afghanistan. The problem with this strategy is that it may be too late – it has little place for Afghanistan’s existing government.
The head of the existing government refers to our forces as “occupiers”. It is fairly obvious that President Obama and President Karzai loathe each other. When victory in “nation building” means that the result is hostile, corrupt, and incompetent, what’s the point? The point is defeating the Taliban – that is the bottom line.
It may be wise for the United States to ignore the government in Kabul, as it is probably more of a hindrance than help. Instead, we need to see Afghanistan as a tribal confederation with the President (or King or Emperor) as a titular head. Where Hamid Karzai still has legitimacy, let him rule. Elsewhere, we need to promote tribal militias and deal with regional governors and notables who can help us.
Obama will focus “like a laser” on “the real enemy,” which to him is found in NJ, LA, and TX.
So the dimbulb in the W.H. really thinks he can just change reality by the words he uses to describe it?
It will be interesting to see if it’s possible to work that slight-of-tongue to change a tarring & feathering to a long soak in a champagne-filled hot tub.
America’s interests in Central Asia are simple – defeating the Taliban. Rural Afghans cannot understand “nation building” or leftist utopias. They do understand revenge for the September 11 attacks.
Our interests in the Middle East are simple – defeating al-Qaeda – all of it. Saudi oil is peripheral. Indeed, it may actually be in America’s interests if the oil fields of the Persian Gulf were blown up. Such a catastrophe would destroy the natural price advantage of Persian Gulf oil and with it, the geopolitical significance of the Middle East.
Our enemies must be made to understand that the consequences of attacking the United States are severe – very severe. We must find means to bleed our enemies faster than they bleed us.
Sadly, some people act like Milo Minderbinder, imagining that the bottom line is access to Middle Eastern oil or maintaining economic ties with our worst enemies. Such people are like cats that prefer to play with mice rather than kill them.
#41 RWE . . .
Good post, along with many others on this thread. The Mohammedans should FEAR us. We should be ready to destroy them so that they understand that we mean what we say.
The Taliban, et al, are crazy people with a nutty religion. If they try to kill us, we will destroy them. There is no point to pretending that we are “Mr. Nice Guy.”
Wretchard’s Three Conjectures gave me the chills when I first read it. I understood then that we are at war to the death. Either THEY change, or we will drop the PC.
I used to be a “liberal,” but now I’m a “Jacksonian.” I’m sure I’m not the only one who made huge shift in thinking on 9/11.
@53. gokart-mozart
I truly wish someone had the stones to push for atomics on, around, under and through OBL’s locations in Tora Bora. Risk soldiers for that? No need! Fallout minimal, and it would have kept Pakistan quiet for literally decades.
“My beloved fellow Americans, I have good news: today we have conclusively eliminated the ringleaders of the treacherous terrorist attack on our country. Our military mission is over, as we have no intention of forcing ourselves on peoples now freed from said ringleaders–they are free, and now may choose how to live with all consequences for good or ill that entails.
I will now deliver a short note to our foreign listeners and dignitaries: do not mess with us again. Ever.
Thank you all, God bless, and good night.”
I suppose this past is left to Turtledove, now, sadly.
–JC
RWE @ 52 & gokart-mozart @ 53,
Cold War nukes are too dirty for glazing towel-heads. We and friendly nations end up eating our own fall-out. Cold War nukes are useful only for MAD and short of that they are an obvious bluff. IMHO after the Soviets folded, we should have converted our entire strategic weapons inventory over to single RV low-CEP ICBMs armed with clean burning low fallout nukes. We should have made a clear presentation to all potential adversaries that we had nukes and were prepared to use them. As it stands, we are all bluff and bluster. I dare say that 9/11 happened precisely because bin Laden saw through our deception. This situation will get us into serious trouble after the Iranians have acquired ICBMs with thermonuclear warheads. The Iranians have Allah and the 12th Iman on their side so they won’t be shy about using their nukes.
Before Obama, I never knew that walking, talking excrement existed.
Alexis @ 61: “The interesting this about Afghanistan is that it has often been quite peaceful under various empires”
Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Arabia, Kazakhstan, Cambodia, Roman Britain, Gaul, and lots of other hellholes.
Honey, that’s what empires are FOR. Peace.
The Lytro camera is interesting. I’m not sure how they’re doing this, but there might be a way for them to do this which might allow them to calculate range-to-pixel information, and to do so passively. This would be an exciting development, very useful tactically. Some “depth” cameras exist which can provide some range-to-pixel info. The camera in the XBox’s Kinect does this. I believe the range is limited and that it is an active sensor rather than passive – active sensors emit some energy then take measurements off it, passive sensors do not. Active sensor examples: radar, sonar, camera + flashbulb. Passive sensor examples: camera w/o flash, IR cameras. Active sensors announce their presence and their position. You’ll never know a passive one is there unless you go find it.
For those who “don’t give a shit,” I will repeat: Our previous neglect of Afghanistan (and Pakistan) resulted in 9/11. That is a fact. Period.
I can’t define what “not neglecting” or not ignoring Afghanistan/Pakistan should look like, I just know that those who would take it over who are hostile to us are likely to invite terrorists back in to restart training camps, etc., or some similar process that will eventually harm us. How do we deal with this to prevent a recurrence of the deadly consequences that cost 3,000 American civilian lives? There can be many answers; what we’ve been doing for the last decade may not be it, but we have to have some kind of effective strategies to deal with those who intend us harm no matter whether we “leave them alone” or not. We cannot declare peace with them, they won’t have it.
What are the right answers? “Not giving a shit” is definitely the wrong answer.
1. We are in a religious war – Muslim versus infidel. We must engage and change that to a sectarian war – Salafis versus Hanafis, etc.
2. We must target internal qawm and khel constituencies actively advancing those who are natural competitors to both the Salafis and Jihadis.
3. We must realize that as an exogenous element introduced into Afghanistan’s human terrain, we are decidedly not part of the permanent solution and plan accordingly.
I wrote a little about this in the Middle East Quarterly, under “Reforming the Village War”
Don @ 71: “For those who “don’t give a shit,” I will repeat: Our previous neglect of Afghanistan (and Pakistan) resulted in 9/11. That is a fact. Period.”
Actually, it was our neglect of our enemy, Saudi Arabia, that resuled in 9/11. THAT is a fact. Period. But I digress.
What I do not give a shit about is how the savage barbarians live IN THIR OWN VILLAGES, IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. What they do with their women, whether or not they allow DVD players to import Western filth, or not, how they raise their children – all that is none of my business.
If they desire to EXPORT their savage barbarism over here, about that, I definitely give more than a shit. If you read upthread, you will see my opinion that 4 W-88s on Tora Bora in late November 2001 would have solved THAT problem for several generations, if accompanied with the message, “if you mean us harm, we’ll be back. We have LOTS of these things”.
Mucking around in the dirt with these barbarians aftre 10 years is criminally stupid and should be stopped ASAP.
Traditional conservatives object to foreign adventures such as our 10-year involvement in Afghanistan for the following:
* We (the USA) have no real interest there, we are fighting Israels battles for them. (I don’t buy this)
* Nation-building for a nation of savages is a fools errand.
* Whenever we engage in one of these adventures inevitably thousands of “refugees” from the invaded country end up coming here to live among us. (the so-called invade the world/ invite the world doctrine)
I don’t agree with the first objection, but the second and third are spot on. I am surprised Obama hasn’t yet announced that as part of our withdrawal, we need to import a few hundred thousand Afghans, our friends, to come live among us. What could be better than more Diversity? Maybe they can join the Somali’s and Ethiopians already here in attacking, raping and killing ordinary white middle class Americans. (See Somalis in New Hampshire beat 13-year old white girl senseless, Ethiopian attempts to smuggle bomb into Pentagon, Somali plans to detonate truck bomb at Christmas tree ceremony in Portland, Somali teenagers randomly attack white pedestrians in Minnesota, etc etc, etc) If the One can add thousands of Afghans to come here and make similar trouble, what a win that would be for Obama!
Don Rodrigo@71
Agreed about neglect. The issue now is whether keeping 100,000 troops there and maintaining our current strategy is the right way to deal with the problem and address that prior neglect.
I don’t think it is.
As far as terrorist training camps go do we need 100,000 troops there to solve that issue? Between airpower such as drones, B-1s and B-52s and offshore naval assets we can can destroy any potential terrorist training camp as soon as we become aware of it. We could have destroyed all the camps in the 90s whenever we felt like it, the problem was we didn’t really care and Clinton didn’t do anything.
No one is suggesting that we just leave and totally ignore the region and pay no attention like we did in the 90s when we let camps openly flourish and sat by and did nothing as thousand of jihadists every year passed through.
However, between the above air/naval assets and having various special forces, CIA, and other units on standby in the region we can always deal with terrorist targets whenever we have actionable intelligence(which is really the key in dealing with terrorism, especially human intelligence). We didn’t need 100,000 troops or really to have any large presence in Afghanistan at all to get OBL. We didn’t need to do nation building and occupation to get KSM, or Hambali, or Ramzi Yousef, or whoever. They were all classic intelligence ops based on old-fashioned humint. The surge in Afghanistan isn’t really doing anything to help us get Zawahiri, or Saif al-Adel, or any other AQ leaders or operatives.(again that will all be intel) It’s not really helping the drone program that’s sevrely downgrading AQ and the Taliban. It’s doing nothing to help us deal with the larger threat posed by jihad, salafism, wahabbism, radical islam, etc…
Moreover I don’t think the camps or even Afghanistan or the Taliban per se had that much to do with 9/11 or other terror attacks. As Wretchard has said, it’s like saying some rocks in the North Pacific had to do with Pearl Harbor. The 9/11 guys all trained here in the US for the mission. Having troops in Kandahar wouldn’t have prevented them from going to flight schools here and buying plane tickets and box cutters. Sure they went through some basic course in Afghanistan but that didn’t really have all that much to do with the mission. Mohammad Atta and the rest spent most of their time and really got together in Hamburg, Germany. They trained and made their preparation in the US in places like Florida and Las Vegas. Again, would our current presence in Afghanistan have prevented that?
9/11 was an AQ operation. They could have planned it from anywhere(as they’ve planned numerous others ops from other places). The Taliban didn’t help them. Has anyone suggested that absent AQ the Taliban will be planning terrroist attacks against the West. Are Taliban operatives going to show up in New York or LA?
Look at what’s happened since 9/11 and since we routed the Taliban and occupied Afghanistan. They still were able to plan the Bali bombings, the 3/11 Madrid bombings, the 7/7 London bombings, and others I can’t recall offhand. They were able to plan attacks on US targets like the Shoe bomber, Xmas day bombing, the Times Sq, and the Heathrow plot that ended up not working but really because of luck not really because of anything we did. So not having that safe haven in Afghanistan didn’t really impeded AQ and other terrorists from carrying out deadly attacks. They were able to carry out attacks before Afghanistan when they were based in Sudan, they were able to carry out attacks after the invasion of Afghanistan.
And even if we do prevent them from returning to Afghanistan what’s to stop them from going to Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Djibouti, Indonesia, wherever. Events since 9/11 have shown the just about all the top AQ leaders and operatives are in Pakistan, anyway. As are most of the Taliban, btw. Pakistan is the real center of grvaity, not Afghanistan. I don’t think we can win in Afghanistan as long we ignore Pakistan as a sanctuary. It’s like trying to win in South Vietnam and doing nothing about Laos, Cambodia, China, North Vietnam, etc…
Afghanistan could become Switzerland tomorrow and the Taliban could surrender en masse and that would have little or no effect on AQ in Pakistan, in Yemen, in North Africa, and all their other operatives throughout the world. It wouldn’t do a thing to put an end to all the terrorist funding pouring through the golden chain and other Saudi and Gulf sources. Wouldn’t do a thing to end the madrassas in Pakistan and elsewhere that are churning out millions of hate-filled jihadists by the year. Wouldn’t do a thing to deal with the jihad sponsored by Iran(or their drive to nukes), Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc… and their affiliates like Hezbollah, Hamas, Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Muslim Brotherhood(and their potential takeover of Egypt and other arab countries), etc… Wouldn’t do a thing to dealwith the ideological and root causes of the threat we face. Factors that have been ignored by the last two US administrations, by President from both parties, by Congresses controlled by both parties.
So, the real issue is to first truly identify and acknowledge the nature of the threat and the enemy and its roots in Jihad and Islamic philosophy and theology, which I don’t think we’ve done. Both Bush and Obama and very other Western leader have told the US and the world that all of this has nothing to do with Islam, that Islam is perfectly peaceful. Can you imagine FDR or Churchill saying “this has nothing to with National Socialism or Fascism, the Nazis are peaceful and share our values, unfortunately there a few bad apples among them, just like we have our bad apples”
Once we do that we have to figure out the best way to eliminate that threat.
In Afghanistan we have to ask if our current approach of keeping 100,000 troops in country to build up Afghan forces and nation-build with no real hope of ultimate victory over the Taliban but merely buying enough time until we can leave and have some confidence that the Afghan govt will be able to survive more than a few days, is really the most effective strategy, or is there a better way? I think there’s a better way.
To all the respondents to my #71 post:
As I said, I don’t have a definitive answer as to the proper way to “give a shit” should be. Some of you offered detailed scenarios for what might work; I meant to be thought-provoking, and I gost responses — tahnk you.
After 9/11, when the government was contemplating creating DHS, I wrote a letter to the Wahington Times (they published it) in which I said I was against a DHS because it wasn’t necessary; I then wrote that had we taken care of business aggressively and ruthlessly in prior years, there should be no need for major military actions against 3rd-world actors. An aggressive, ambitious policy of covert action on several fronts might have prevented much of the expenditure of blood and treasure that we have bumbled into. I believe in the adage attributed to Orwell that “rough men do rough things for us while we sleep at night,” or words to that effect.
“We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” George Orwell
And this:
“War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.” George Orwell