Bill Frist - Taliban Appeaser?

[HankB]

Bill Frist says we should consider letting the Taliban back into Afghan politics. Full story at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/02/AR2006100200738.html

Here's an interesting snippet from Page 2 of the story:

Frist and Martinez  . . . had intended to visit a new $6.5 million hospital built by the United Arab Emirates, but a group of wounded Taliban fighters were recuperating there, including a midlevel commander, and U.S. commander Lt. Col. Kevin McGlaughlin canceled the visit because of security concerns.

NO WONDER the Taliban is enjoying a resurgence - we KNOW where they are, AND WE WON'T GO GET THEM!

Stay tuned - maybe if/when Frist visits Berlin, he'll come up with reasons for re-Nazification of Germany.

[El Tejon]

Hey, making the Communists part of the government worked so well in case of the Sandanistas!:D

Washington wants an out as they have their you know what in a hornets' nest.  They will make the Taliban part of a coalition government, proclaim victory, run like hell from Afghanistan, and watch as the country melts down into civil war a couple of years later.  Then, we get to start all over--yay!  Sort of like The Matrix if you think about it!:D

Great book entitled God's Terrorists which details the Wahabbi/Deobani activity during the British Raj.  History repeating itself--first as tragedy, second is farce.

[El Tejon]

Here's a link for the book, which I recommend:  http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Terrorists-Wahhabi-Hidden-Modern/dp/0316729973

[CAnnoneer]

Unfortunately, most of the current West has been ideologically emasculated and feminized to the point of blatant Chamberlainism. The bitter fruit of a century of leftist-liberal propaganda.

9/11 may very well have been our last chance for a dramatic cultural and ideological change, but the wrong people were at the right place at the right time, and thus failed to rise to the occasion.

[Lobotomy Boy]

I don't think Bill Frist is exactly a cowardly pinko (though he seems to have his moments). In this case he seems to be a realist. Pakistan can't control its northern territory, and it's got the home-court advantage. Northern Pakistan and southern Afghanistan are difficult places to control because of the geography and the culture. To bring them under control to the point where the Taliban could be defeated would require a massive military effort. I'd like to see the Taliban destroyed as much as anyone, but our military resources are stretched to the breaking point in Iraq right now. Are you suggesting we pull our troops out of Iraq and send them to Afghanistan? That might or might not be a bad idea, but either way I think it would be a tough sell.

[The Rabbi]

I actually agree with you.  Frist's mistake was in saying this.  That terrain is all but impossible to control.  And sometimes having your enemy within arm's reach is easier than having him outside your grasp.

[CAnnoneer]

Yes, let's keep playing "gendarmes & apaches" with these dirtbags, galloping around the world. Pathetic.

This war cannot be won without far more violence than too many Americans are willing to stomach.

[The Rabbi]

Yes, let's keep playing "gendarmes & apaches" with these dirtbags, galloping around the world. Pathetic.

This war cannot be won without far more violence than too many Americans are willing to stomach.

Really?  What would you suggest?  Nuke em all and let god sort them out?  American suicide bombers in Khost?  Sending body parts back to families?  Let's hear your solutions.

[roo_ster]

"The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea."
Mao Tse-Tung

To eliminate the Taliban threat in a relatively quick manner, we would have to remove the people who support them.  This technique has been demonstrated in times past.  The old way was killing & dispersing the population.  The Brits intorduced concentration camps as a more humane alternative in S Africa at the turn of the 20th century.  The Israelis were fortunate in that so many Arabs left/were rousted during their war for independance.  Now, they are fencing off the population which fosters guerillas to inhibit guerilla movement.

Otherwise, most successful counter-insurgencies take about 10 years to achieve success.  Relatively recent examples include the Brits in Maylaysia & the SW Arabian peninsula, the USA vs the Viet Cong in S Vietnam, USA vs Moros in the PI, USA vs various guerillas in Latin America in the first half of the 20th century.

Neither solution is pretty.  The former is the least palatable to contemporary sensibilities...though it is arguably the most likely to achieve a stable situation after the counter-insurgent forces leave the area.

From my perspective, I expect the West (read: USA & Anglosphere) will have to go in every so often to "drain the swamp" and kill some jihadis.  It is a task the West has had to perform since the Mohammedians broke out of Arabia.

[The Rabbi]

Advocating concentration camps.  Whoda thunk it?

[CAnnoneer]

War is in the will. Break the will and you win. Nothing we have done so far breaks any will. On the contrary, lack of success is perceived as failure, while magnanimity and generosity as decadence and weakness. We kill them and they laugh at us.

The nexus of will is their perception as fighters of a holy war. To win against a holy war, you must discredit it either by inflicting horrible depressing military defeats or by scoring psychological victories. The former worked with the Nazis and bushidoist because they fought as countries and modern armies in uniform. Clearly, the nature of guerilla warfare will disallow such a pathway here (see the recent Israeli debacle in Lebanon). The latter however are readily accessible.

As I have argued previously, destroy their religious and cultural icons, abuse and destroy their relics, blow up their temples, kill off their leaders and ideologues, stomp their cultures into the dust.

All of the above can be accomplished with minimal casualties if done right. Their spirit will be broken and victory achieved.

Finally, I will be less than sincere if I do not point out that I consider the complete nuclear obliteration of the Near and Middle East a viable and likely preferable alternative. However, many fellow-Americans would not be up to it (at least up until it is too late), and thus I propose trying the above first.

[The Rabbi]

Well advocating murder, mayhem, and destruction of cultural relics really gives you some legitimacy here, doesn't it?

[CAnnoneer]

Well advocating murder, mayhem, and destruction of cultural relics really gives you some legitimacy here, doesn't it?

Here we go again. No argument or logic, just an emotional lunge at personal discreditation. This tactics of yours keeps failing yet you keep resorting to it.

[richyoung]

Well advocating murder, mayhem, and destruction of cultural relics really gives you some legitimacy here, doesn't it?

How else is one to respond to...murder, mayhem, and the destruction of culteral relics, with forced conversion thrown in to boot?  If you wressle with pigs, you're gonna get muddy.  Can't win THIS fight with Marquis de Queensbury rules...

[Iain]

Here we go again. No argument or logic, just an emotional lunge at personal discreditation. This tactics of yours keeps failing yet you keep resorting to it.

No, I think it was a fairly logical non-emotional argument. A good one too.

[The Rabbi]

Well advocating murder, mayhem, and destruction of cultural relics really gives you some legitimacy here, doesn't it?

Here we go again. No argument or logic, just an emotional lunge at personal discreditation. This tactics of yours keeps failing yet you keep resorting to it.

There is no logic that can refute the argument that in order to battle terrorism we need to become terrorists.  No logic is needed to argue against what you are proposing.  To argue rationally would be to consider it as a possibility and cloak it with a legitimacy it definetely does not have.

[charby]

Didn't the Korean War get started because of a statement made by a statesman? I guess history does repeat itself.

-C

[Darwin]

Here we go again. No argument or logic, just an emotional lunge at personal discreditation. This tactics of yours keeps failing yet you keep resorting to it.

Anyone with a shred of human decency doesn't need to waste too much time logically disputing a call to genocide.

To eliminate the Taliban threat in a relatively quick manner, we would have to remove the people who support them.  This technique has been demonstrated in times past.  The old way was killing & dispersing the population.  The Brits intorduced concentration camps as a more humane alternative in S Africa at the turn of the 20th century.

Interesting point. The Kaiser's troops tried something like this when they instituted their policy of "frightfulness," or repressive, brutal treatment of the occupied people in Belgium. As in South Africa and every other case, the policy ultimately backfired. I think it would be especially likely to backfire on a culture like that in Afghanistan, where people think of history not in terms of years or even decades, but in terms of centuries and even millennia.

I'd be lying if I said I had good ideas for dealing with the situation in Afghanistan. Until I do, I'm going to have to defer to Bill Frist, who is much more well-informed on the subject then I am.

BTW, I am Lobotomy Boy. I had to log in under a different name on this computer because I didn't have access to my original password. I think this has caused some confusion in the past.

[Perd Hapley]

I Am Lobotomy Boy - sounds like a film title.

I don't think CAnnoneer is talking about genocide, although his plan is almost as brutal.

His more detailed plan, from here, post 13: http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/viewtopic.php?id=4419&p=1    

Total (cultural) war.

For the leaders, capture them, leave them unkempt, and show them on TV inside cages like wild animals. Break them psychologically by exposure and mental warfare, until they appear on TV and talk about the error of their ways and how everything is lost. (kind of what the libs are doing to America now)

For their cultural icons, rip, destroy, detonate, smash, cast into the dust:
1) Loot and destroy their temples,
2) break up the Black Rock into little pieces, pulverize it into fine dust, then put it in fiber mixture to make toilet paper out of it. Sell the toilet paper and encourage the population to use it
3) Demolish their historic cities, plow the land, and sow it with salt so that nothing grows there
4) Ban all arabic languages on TV, on radio, on the internet, and in print
5) Burn down all their theological libraries
6) Destroy the madrassas and take the students as prisoners of war
7) Arrest, try, and execute every imam that even thinks about "jihad"
Arrest, try, expropriate, and execute every sheikh that finances jihad and/or refuses to secularize
9) Send a bunch of old-school teachers to teach English and Western civilization values in all local schools

All areas in which significant guerrilla activity arises are to be depopulated. The message is clear: if you support guerrillas, pack your bags! If you do not support guerrillas, they won't be here.

The above is a start.

[Darwin]

Now there's a plan. Now that Wolfowitz is at the World Bank, the Department of Defense could use a forward-thinking visionary to come up with plans like this. I'd almost like to see it tried, just to see how it would work out.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm a uniter, not a divider.  

[The Rabbi]

I though CAnoneer was a little off.  But anyone who would post drekk like that is more than off.  Fortunately most people, especially the ones responsible for making decisions, aren't as whacked out as to believe that it has a shred of a chance of working.  Of course, they are the ones whose butts would be hauled up in international tribunal for war crimes so I guess they have some stake in the matter.

[CAnnoneer]

Of course, they are the ones whose butts would be hauled up in international tribunal for war crimes so I guess they have some stake in the matter.

By whom? Such trials are set up by self-indulgent victors. If you are the victor, you hold the trial. Kind of like what we are doing to Saddam now.

Maybe you should go read about Curtis LeMay and other fine Americans, and how they won WW2. It is so very ironic that the only reason you have the opportunity to criticize such methods is because they were applied by your ancestors for your sake. Hehehehe. It just does not get better than that...

[Perd Hapley]

I thought you said that we won WWII by other methods.  

 To win against a holy war, you must discredit it either by inflicting horrible depressing military defeats or by scoring psychological victories. The former worked with the Nazis and bushidoist because they fought as countries and modern armies in uniform. Clearly, the nature of guerilla warfare will disallow such a pathway here (see the recent Israeli debacle in Lebanon). The latter however are readily accessible.

We made the Emperor publicly admit he was not divine, but I don't recall him being kept in a cage.  The Nazi leadership were simply tried and hung, weren't they?  

I still say the best way to humiliate the Islamist leadership is to have them wake up with female organs.  Maybe they could be forced to learn belly-dancing and then tour the Mid-East.  Hee-hee-hee.

[CAnnoneer]

Anyone with a shred of human decency doesn't need to waste too much time logically disputing a call to genocide.

Indeed logic cannot be expected to survive in the face of an emotional reaction motivated by arbitrary idealistic ethical belief. Unfortunately, the reality is subject to physical, rather than ethical laws. Or maybe fortunately so, because while your ethics allows the jihadists to survive, their ethics demands your decapitation.