Comments on: Col. Ralph Peters: Escape the Afghan Quagmire Before It’s Too Late

By: Karen

Karen — Tue, 26 May 2009 21:03:01 +0000

Dear Col. Peters: I just watched you on Neil Cavuto. You were stating that terrorists should never have made it to Gitmo, that they should have been killed way before, are beyond humanity and are monsters; therefore, kill the monsters. I absolutely agree with you. They do not have a place in our society and I’m shocked that there are those who want to give them every constitutional right we Americans have including the right to house, feed and cloth them, a fair trial and their own attorneys at our expense. What is happening to this world?
I say either keep them at Gitmo or move them into Barrack Obama’s backyard.

By: Wiseacre

Wiseacre — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:44:44 +0000

Foreign powers have failed in Afghanistan throughout history,most recently the British and the Soviets. Is there any reason to expect that NATO will fare any better? The reason for the original invasion was to remove a terrorist supporting regime and hunt down alQueda types. To these has been added “creating conditions for democracy”. It would take generations to establish such conditions. This isn’t really a country but a number of tribal groups with moral codes and traditions that are ancient and rigid.

By: charlie finch

charlie finch — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:38:37 +0000

What we are already seeing with Obama is Kissinger style realpoliticking: Hillary’s overture to China, Holbrooke’ macho posturing in Afghanistan, the idea that Mitchell’s IRA/Brit success can translate to the Palestinean problem, Steinberg’s emergence at State, the free hand to Gates to basically run the Pakistan war as he please, Blair and Jim Jones as mysterious, anonymous backstops and a beancounter, Panetta, at CIA to keep their leak happy bureaucracy content. It’s swarm of experience strategy with the policy insects picking off every possible scrap off the picnic table to make a foreign policy feast. No one sphere of influence (cf. Iran) demands concentration and our foreign policy becomes like a game of Diplomacy (the board game), shuffle troops, add money, subtract influence. The way things are going Obama is emerging as a foreign policy wizard and a domestic policy wanker. One cannot help but think that I knows that only an FDR style war economy wull draw us out of a Depression.

By: huxley

huxley — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:33:41 +0000

Read the whole column and if you have a better plan for staying in, tell us what it is. Tell the families of the G.I.’s who will be killed and torn to pieces in service of it.

Ron Rosenbaum — It’s Obama who is sending more men into Afghanistan, not your readers.

You led cheers for Obama and presumably voted for him. What’s your plan? What do you intend to tell those families?

How do you square this with all your claims for Obama’s intelligence and competence?

By: Ace

Ace — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:49:51 +0000

Pepperoni, 100s, extra cheese, 20s, no 50s! Tell the guy to yell up, the buzzer’s broken.

By: OmegaPaladin

OmegaPaladin — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 03:02:04 +0000

Peters is opposed to counter-insurgency doctrine. He is of the “more rubble, less trouble” school. His praise for the surge related to killing more terrorists, as opposed to flipping the Anbar sheiks. I’m not an expert on this matter, but this forum link has some details on his differences of opinion with the surge.
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=3301

A better plan? Well, if we have to leave, we leave nothing behind. Oh, and we give Pakistan the shaft, cutting off our contacts and selling India the JSF. THe moment we leave Pakistan, they are nothing to us.

By: huxley

huxley — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:37:23 +0000

cc — Good pick! I found the Peters’ essay at cached link.

I am certain that Obama’s hubris, naivete, and beholdenness to his anti-war base are going to get the US into big foreign policy trouble soon.

I don’t think he will become extremely hawkish but he will act in impulsive, ad hoc ways that will weaken the US while confusing and destabilizing the rest of the world.

By: charlie finch

charlie finch — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:25:10 +0000

Woodrow Wilson, 1916 campaign: “I will not send your sons to fight on foreign soil.” FDR, 1940 campaign: “I hate war” Obama, 2008 campaign: “Iraq is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.” Barack Obama spent six months, while he was student at Occidental College travelling around Pakistan with his three closet friends who were all Pakistanis. He will be the most hawkish President in memory.

By: class clown

class clown — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:24:57 +0000

I’ve been reading Peter’s essays faithfully, ever since I stumbled across his interview “The Shah always falls” years ago. Few things I’ve ever read have affected my thinking as deeply.

I can’t say I’ve always agreed with Peters, but he is wise, and anything he has to say should be very carefully considered.

By: Pops in Vienna

Pops in Vienna — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:16:11 +0000

As the father of two US paratroopers, who have served multiple deployments in Iraq, I read the article with great interest.

Ralph Peters laid out the case very well. Without reliable supply lines there isn’t much we can expect to accomplish. With Pakistan against us and Russia making mischief, I’d say it’s definitely time to declare victory and get the hell out.

Democrats aren’t good a fighting wars. If we stay, it will become another Vietnam. More and more troops sent in every year with heavy restrictions from Washington about what operations they can engage in. Without a major land invasion of Pakistan, the Taliban will always have a safe haven.

Obama will have to prove his machismo, so I fear we’ll get a lot of our brave soldiers and Marines killed (for nothing) so the Messiah can demonstrate how tough he is.