Afghanistan: The "Good War" or Vietnam 2.0?

[MicroBalrog]

Frankly, though, I think the greatest existential threat is likely to come from within, from the machinations of political and para-political groups infiltrating the marrow of our social and political system.  As far as I am concerned that process is already well underway.

This is my point exactly. Decades ago, intellectuals – Lester Ward, Thorstein Weblen, Maynard Keynes – had poisoned the political discourse with the ideas that are known today, between them, as 'left-liberalism' or progressivism.  These people are long dead and yet their ideas still hold a powerful sway over the management of American (and Western) economy. They are the true poison.

  Sure, we survived the death toll of 11 Sept., and we could survive future attacks of that sort.  But such things cannot be tolerated.  Does that mean we need a massive police state?  No.  Does that mean we shouldn't be invading Blow-you-up-a-stan?  No. 

But we are slowly creating a massive police state. And, in politics, the people who are creating a massive police state and the people who are in favor of invading Blow-you-up-a-stan are the same people.

The phrase 'cannot be tolerated' is entirely meaningless. Murder cannot be tolerated. Certainly me being murdered is something I cannot tolerate. If I knew there were direct death threats against me, I might consider asking for some form of police protection or entering into protective custody, as sometimes people have to do. But digging a moat around my house and entombing myself in a bomb shelter because there's been a stabbing somewhere down the block from me? No. You weigh the threats against the benefits and the costs.

Japan, or Germany, could have won WW2 and destroyed America. The Soviets could have destroyed America.

On the other hand, Noriega posed no existential threat. Neither do, say, the Somali pirates. The world is dealing with them quite well without obsessing over piracy.

It is important whether something poses an existential threat, because it allows you to weigh the threat against other issues.

[Gewehr98]

rather it should come from tens of millions of strong-willed, strong-minded, and strong-bodied citizens who take care of business at arm's length.

We

Are

SPARTA!

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Why debate whether a threat is "existential"?  Sure, we survived the death toll of 11 Sept., and we could survive future attacks of that sort. 

"We" survived the attacks?

A great many of us didn't survive those attacks.  If there were to be similar attacks in the future, a great many of us wouldn't survive those either.

For some 3,000 Americans on 9/11, Middle Eastern terrorism certainly proved to be an existential threat

[makattak]

Were the Barbary Pirates an existential threat?

[MicroBalrog]

Were the Barbary Pirates an existential threat?

Thank you, this is exactly my point.

I don't remember Jefferson creating a new government department to deal with them.

Furthermore, the wars had a defined END. They ended with the peace treaties. Whom are we going to sign the peace treaty with now?

[Waitone]

I don't remember Jefferson creating a new government department to deal with them.

True statement.  But he did deal with the problem at its source, something we are not doing as long as we focus on Afghanistan.  The source of the problem is in certain allies we prefer to not irritate. 

[Perd Hapley]

But we are slowly creating a massive police state.

Again, what does "existential threat" have to do with it?  Would it be OK to create a massive police state, if there were an existential threat? 

The phrase 'cannot be tolerated' is entirely meaningless.

The fact that you don't understand it does not make it meaningless.  You apparently did find some meaning in it, albeit the wrong one, as you thought it was an argument for some kind of over-reaction to terrorism.  All it means is that terrorism must be dealt with in some way; it cannot be allowed to continue unabated. 

Now, if you want something meaningless, try this: 

And, in politics, the people who are creating a massive police state and the people who are in favor of invading Blow-you-up-a-stan are the same people.

No.  Too many politicians voted for the Patriot Act before they voted against it.  Or voted to authorize force in Iraq, before they decided to capitalize on the opposition to it.  Or denounced Bush policy X, until they voted for Barack Obama, who continued it.  In any case, your comment was irrelevant.  I was asking why "existential threat" is such a talking point for you. 

You weigh the threats against the benefits and the costs.  Japan, or Germany, could have won WW2 and destroyed America. The Soviets could have destroyed America.  On the other hand, Noriega posed no existential threat. Neither do, say, the Somali pirates. The world is dealing with them quite well without obsessing over piracy.  It is important whether something poses an existential threat, because it allows you to weigh the threat against other issues.

Again, there's no answer here.  We ARE weighing benefits and costs.  And we don't have a draft, or war-time censorship, or rationing, or whatever else you said was OK in war, when there is an e.t.  So far, I don't recall seeing any legislation that's coterminous with the GWOT.  Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see anyone (of any consequence) saying we need to surrender some list of rights until the war is over. 

If they are, let's put a stop to it, but saying "they're not an existential threat" doesn't get you anywhere, except sounding like you don't care.  As in HTG's reaction.

"We" survived the attacks?  A great many of us didn't survive those attacks.  If there were to be similar attacks in the future, a great many of us wouldn't survive those either.  For some 3,000 Americans on 9/11, Middle Eastern terrorism certainly proved to be an existential threat

.

   I think you know what we mean by "existential," as in threatening the existence of the nation. 

[MicroBalrog]

Again, what does "existential threat" have to do with it?  Would it be OK to create a massive police state, if there were an existential threat?

...I know you'll hate me for this, but probably, yes.

If there is a major emergency, which this is not, then it is justified - as it is not - to introduce emergency powers to deal with it. Every single US President who dealt with national emergencies - Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt - utilized an extent of emergency powers. It's difficult to argue that the military draft was not morally legitimate in 1942.

All it means is that terrorism must be dealt with in some way; it cannot be allowed to continue unabated.

Here's the crux of it. There has always been, and there will always be, terrorism.

By 'cannot be tolerated', do you mean that the current 'emergency' must continue until the last terrorist is dead? Because you'll be fighting for a long, long time if this is the case.

I'm all in favor of crushing al-Quaeda like the useless bug it is.

But I want to know: What needs to be accomplished for us to decide that this is over, and to go home, and to repeal the Patriot act and collect our peace dividend already?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Yes, I know what you mean by existential threats.  I'm just pointing  out that "existence" is relative in this context.  Even though an attack may not threaten the entire nation as a whole, it can still destroy everything for the people involved.

In other words, existence of the nation is only one concern that must be considered.  Existence of the individuals must be considered too.  You can't ignore a threat just because it doesn't threaten the nation as a whole. 

It's dumb to obsess about whether a threat is "existential to the nation as a whole" or merely a grave threat to a whole bunch of people.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Here's the crux of it. There has always been, and there will always be, terrorism.

By 'cannot be tolerated', do you mean that the current 'emergency' must continue until the last terrorist is dead? Because you'll be fighting for a long, long time if this is the case.

I'm all in favor of crushing al-Quaeda like the useless bug it is.

But I want to know: What needs to be accomplished for us to decide that this is over, and to go home, and to repeal the Patriot act and collect our peace dividend already?

I think your mistake lies in categorizing the response to terrorism today as an emergency, with the implicit expectation that it must someday be recategorized as not-an-emergency to bring things back to normal.

[Perd Hapley]

That, yes.  I'd also like to know who's saying that every single terrorist must be killed, or that terrorism will be completely wiped out, never to ever be seen again in human history.  Where does that idea come from?  Smells like red herring. 

[MicroBalrog]

That, yes.  I'd also like to know who's saying that every single terrorist must be killed, or that terrorism will be completely wiped out, never to ever be seen again in human history.  Where does that idea come from?  Smells like red herring. 

"We either suppress terrorism or we don't. "

This is something you said. I want to know what you mean by "suppress terrorism".

[Perd Hapley]

Is it really that hard to figure out?  "Suppressing terrorism" would mean that we make an example of groups like Al Qaeda, so that others are discouraged from trying it.  We go after their funding, find their cells, kill them, imprison them, punish their friends, etc.  Is there a definite end point to all of that?  I don't know.  But then, I'm not proposing that we suspend any liberties temporarily until it is accomplished.

[MicroBalrog]

You will note I never said I accused you personally of doing that, though of course, you're fistful, and I am sure it IS your fault.

[Perd Hapley]

OK, sure.   

[slingshot]

I suspect it is an even bet that the US will pull most of our troops out of Afghanistan within 6 months unless there is a lot more support from the other western countries. The war will become a air war and then peter out.  Nothing will have changed.  But, part of the problem lies with the Afghan government. 

[Waitone]

But, part of the problem lies with the Afghan government.

Therein lies the problem.  A'stan is a tribal country.  Central government is an alien concept to the rank and file A'stani and a real no-no to tribal poobahs.  The US was able to dump the Taliban in v1.0 but using tribal alliances to turn on A'stan's version of a central government (aka Taliban). 

So now we are into "nation building" and we've thrown our support behind Karzi to form a sound central government.  Problem is Karzi is a tribal leader and instead of seeing a central government as the US intends, other tribal leaders see the US as having sided with one tribe.  Enter stage left Taliban remnants and over time we have what the Soviets experienced.

Our mistake is nation building as a strategy with counter insurgency as a tactic.  In A'stan v1.0 our goals were simple. . . . kill and destroy the terrorist infrastructure.  Once we move to nation building we immediately made enemies of our temporary allies.  Stick with nation building and we will lose.  Return to the original strategy and tactics and we may not lose. 

Then again, if you want to control the flow of heroin or future oil pipelines I guess you need the rudiments of a nation state.  But again the cynic in blurts out the obvious.

[HankB]

If we were serious about winning in Afghanistan, one thing we'd do is put the entire area off-limits to the JAG corps; it's not useful to have some REMF military lawyers watching our soldiers constantly, ready to crucify them if they shoot back too much.

[roo_ster]

If we were serious about winning in Afghanistan, one thing we'd do is put the entire area off-limits to the JAG corps; it's not useful to have some REMF military lawyers watching our soldiers constantly, ready to crucify them if they shoot back too much.

Here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3mGb5QdZ1g

FF to 1:38 if you're in a hurry, but the whole video is worth watching.

"This is a 1023 PVR-2117 delta model recording device.  It's made to record a soldier's combat experience, so if you do shoot somebody you're not supposed to, they can pin your ass."

[HankB]

. . . "This is a 1023 PVR-2117 delta model recording device.  It's made to record a soldier's combat experience, so if you do shoot somebody you're not supposed to, they can pin your ass."

Sadly, if the production values were a little higher, this part of the parody could pass for fact . . . and would get the enthusiatic support of people like Congressman Murtha. 

[longeyes]

"Nation-building"--abroad and at home...

[longeyes]

If "the West" can't find 200,000 troops when Europe has 400 million people, it's time for a complete re-think of what we need to do, where we need to do it, how we need to do it, and for whom we need to do it.