Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Jocassee on September 11, 2009, 01:10:17 PM
-
I can feel it brewing, folks. I can't point to anything in particular that I have seen or heard, but in the dozens of news snippets and article fragments my eyes brush across each day I can sense an oncoming campaign against the Afghanistan war.
Afghanistan has been the sacred cow in American politics ever since 2001. Even when the liberals were demanding that we leave Iraq immediately, no one really seriously thought about leaving the Stan.
But now it's been 8 years. The sting of 9/11 has diminished to a dull pang felt once a year--if then. The threat of terror at home has been diverted, if not diminished, by two wars abroad and an aggressive campaign for homeland security. The most visible reminder of Afghanistan now is the recently intensified frequency of casualty reports and a sense that the Taliban are making an awful lot of racket for a "defeated" foe.
These facts will inevitably raise questions in the mind of America. People will ask, why are we still there? And the media will be happy to respond with helpful factoids about non-democratic society and failed occupations by the British and Soviets.
Which leads us to the following questions:
1. Will the Afghanistan become self-supporting from a security perspective?
2. If so, how long will that take?
3. Will the American people support such an effort until completion? Perhaps with the incentive of increased troop withdrawals over time?
4. Can the U.S. afford failure / premature withdrawal in either Iraq and Afghanistan, from both the "strength abroad" and national security perspectives?
IMHO, Both Iraq and Afghanistan are a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" proposition. If we stay, the world hates us, but if we succeed we feel good about ourselves (the rest of the world will never admit our success). If we leave now and people die because of it (and they will), the world hates us anyways.
Discuss.
-
I remember the libs saying that 'Stan was an OK war, but that Iraq was bad.
Funny how I don't hear anything at all about Iraq now.
-
"I don't think there's a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan, in the country or in the Congress," Pelosi said at a news conference.
She said this yesterday.
I'm not seeing much backlash from the country about either war. So I wonder what makes her say this?
jim
-
She said this yesterday.
I'm not seeing much backlash from the country about either war. So I wonder what makes her say this?
jim
She says it's true because she wants it to be true.
-
Because war against little brown people is against the liberal mind set. We should be appeasing them, removing all forces from the Middle East, and not bother hunting for Bin Laden, or actually filling the power void in Afghanistan.
-
Because war against little brown people is against the liberal mind set.
But... that's why the Army uses the 9mm instead of the .45 now... We're out to subjugate the little people that a .45 is overkill for. Don't you see the conspiracy inherent in the military industrial complex?
=D
-
The odor emanating from A'stan brings back memories of Vietnam. Not a strong odor, mind you, just an odor. Over the years I've read 3+ books by the participants in the take down of the Talaban and AQ in 2001. A few points have stuck in my mind.
--First, you'd better be fighting unconventional style in A'stan or you will get your butt kicked. Historical reality.
--Second, historically no one has successfully bought an A'stani. The best you can do is rent one for an indeterminate period of time.
--Third, you'd better be willing to go belly to belly with some really unpleasant, unsavory characters and be willing to work with them on common goals.
All three elements were in place during the first takedown in 2001. IIRC the maximum number of American boots (consisting of specops, CIA, DIA, NSA, et al) on the ground at any given time during the takedown was much less than 300. Much, much less. That being the case, what are we doing different now?
The aroma I smell has elements of the Church commission which for all you whipper-snappers decreed, among other things, thou (those on the pointy end of the spear) had better not associate with unsavory characters. Intel you gather had better not have a goon's prints on it. To be really safe rely mostly in technical intel and shift out of human intel as it is a threat to your personal well-being.
Thou shalt also not violate US legal norms. Specifically, bribery is a cardinal no-no in the US and therefore it will be a cardinal no-no in A'stan. Never mind for a minute the payment of cash is the way things get done. Matter of fact, the only reason opposition war lord's armies were equipped was because the CIA liberally spread cash around the battlefield which enable the opposition to AQ and the Taliban to arm themselves with local arms.
All during the first takedown heavy metal army wanted control over spec ops. Bush refused to allow it for the simple reason spec ops had people on active duty who had spent and entire lifetime working in and around the theater of operation. Another reason was the heavy metal army would take too long to engage the enemy and start killing. Bush wanted the killing to start ASAP and spec ops was able to oblige. There was no concern with an outside footprint. Bush wanted combat operations fast and he trusted spec ops to do as they said they could do.
The heavy metal army in the form of Tommy Franks never gave up wanting to wade in. He controlled a lot of the resources which spec ops at the time would eventually need. Spec ops in a methodical manner proceeded to roll up AQ and the Taliban and push them into a mountainous area in the NE of the country. They had the bad guys on the ropes but were concerned that they would escape into Pakistan. CIA/spec ops repeatedly asked for a blocking force of Rangers and/or 10th Mountain to block the avenues of retreat. Franks refused for a number of reasons, both valid and invalid. The rest is history. AQ and the Taliban escaped to lick the wounds only to reappear. The inability of the heavy metal army to adapt fast led to the escape of AQ and Taliban.
So back to the odor of Vietnam:
--looks like we've gone conventional
--No direct evidence but I suspect we are relying more on technical intel than human intel. We may have gone back to using Yale graduates sipping tea with similarly educated A' stanis as opposed to dealing with proper scumbags.
--Cash talks in A'stan and it talks best to tribal leaders, not national leaders. We want to create a national government, something at odds with A'stan's history and current makeup.
--Gen. McChrystal may be a spec ops whiz, no doubt. He was responsible for a lot of the killing of the bad guys leadership in Iraq. Petraus had the sense to let McChrystal and his band of merry marauders have their way. I suspect what is going on now is the politicization of A'stan. I strongly suspect DoJ lawyers and White House aides are setting the rules of engagement. I suspect McChrystal is being the good soldier and following his chain of command's orders so he is constrained in what he can do. The rules of engagement make sense to someone whose objective is national building. To someone whose job is to kill the bad guys the rules don't make a lot of sense. Now we hear the Taliban knows how to use our rules of engagement against us. . . . . .just like what was happening in Vietnam.
In short, I think we are Vietnamizing the Afghanistan war. My fear it will lead to the same end including genocide of the population.
-
I was just listening to a report from an embedded reporter in Afghanistan. What struck me was that there is no way we are going to win that war--or any war--with the current rules of engagement. The rules are one more symptom of the complicated moral confusion that has permeated this nation's psyche in the last forty years.
-
We should have fought and won the war against Islamic terrorist savagry on September 12, 2001. An Air Force mission would have solved the problem.
-
After all the #### the left spoke about the war in Iraq for the past 6 or so years; it's pretty much going great now. The Iraqis are policing more and more of their own country every day, combat casualties are down, Iraqi Police and Iraqi Army professionalism are at an all time high. Basically, we won, or are very close to it.
Let the soldiers do their jobs in Afghanistan. Let the NCO, junior enlisted, and even junior officers decide what they need, and get out of their way. Let them(us) win this one too.
-
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."
- Rudyard Kipling, 1890
-
Always did like that poem.
-
Short of exterminating the entire population and giving the nation to Russia or China (which I do NOT support), I don't see any chance for a lasting victory in Afghanistan. The best bet we have is to find a warlord or two that we like and arm them to the gills as we pull out. Then, every so often, detonate a few EMP's over the nation to disrupt communications to the outside world.
Nation-building in a nation that doesn't want to be built is never a good strategy...
-
Never let good poppy fields go to waste; there's serious potential there for corrupting the enemy's moral and spiritual lifeline.
We are as usual shackled by a confused welter of legal noodling and moral unction that prevents us from seeing the goal and the means to that goal clearly, with hard eyes. We continue, centuries into our American experiment, to think that the rest of the world is just like us, only "unenlightened." We have too many utopians and too many missionaries. And at home we have created a society that believes that one per cent of the nation is responsible for keeping our malls open and our harbors nuke-free.
Is General Jasmine still designing the rules of engagement over herbal tea with the "Yale graduates" who graduated with PhDs in Nation-Building?
-
I've come to believe that the political aim with both war theaters is to attrit our military capability while beefing up resumes for future bureaucratic advancement within the ranks. I don't see how anyone can seriously think that our strategy in either Iraq or Afghanistan, after all this time, is addressing the real and deeper issue of how we secure our own national interests for the long-term.
-
With Iraq, if we succeed in leaving a friendly government in place, we have a staging area to use to pressure Iran and other problem governments. Even the presence of a freely elected government in Iraq is a threat to the current regime in Iran.
With Afghanistan, it may be that all we can to is try to keep terrorist groups from using the country as training grounds. We may have to accept a Taliban-style government.
-
I justified the Iraq war on the theory that we were creating "forts" to keep the enemy honest.
But what good are forts if you really have no intention of taking the fight to the real enemy? We have a staging area, okay? To stage what exactly?
-
So wait.
What, precisely, are the military goals of the larger war on terror?
What are the conditions upon which we can say 'The War on Terror is over, we won' and fold up the effort?
-
Why do you ask? Every policy has a goal, and conditions of success or failure. We either suppress terrorism or we don't. What are you getting at?
-
Why do you ask? Every policy has a goal, and conditions of success or failure. We either suppress terrorism or we don't. What are you getting at?
The original poster asked if Afghanistan was a "Good War". That question relies very much on what the goals of the War on Terror are. How am I to know if the policy is a good policy if I don't know what goals it pursues?
Furthermore: Since 9/11, many have believed and claimed that the West now exists in a 'state of emergency', that the world is 'different now' and we need to accept a variety of new infringements on our liberty, or to support candidates who are otherwise hostile to our interests, because they will get 'tough' on terrorism, or at least 'tougher' than their competitors. In various Western countries these concessions had taken various forms.
Had a clear set of goals been defined ("Destroy terrorist organizations X, Y, and Z", "Kill Bin Laden", "Capture Mecca", "reduce the amount of terrorist acts per year b N"), we would be able to:
1. Decide if it's worth it.
2. Have some form of assurance that the temporary emergency measures would be rolled back later.
Western countries - America, the UK, and others - had often enacted emergency measures during wartime. It happened in WW2, and WW1, and the US Civil War, and to some extent during Vietnam. But these emergency measures later went away at least to some degree. The draft, rationing, censorship of the media are now gone. These were far worse than anything we have today, but they went away.
If we have an open-ended emergency, then I fear this idea that 'we must sacrifice some of our liberties for the common good' and the idea that 'we must vote for this politician even though he doesn't like freedom because he is tough on terrorism' will not go away in the foreseeable future.
-
First of all, understand that "War on Terror" is not an actual war. It is a phrase that describes a mind-set. It communicates that terrorism is being taken seriously, and that (obstensibly) we are pro-actively taking steps to eradicate it, rather than merely avoid it or defend against it.
If we have an open-ended emergency, then I fear this idea that 'we must sacrifice some of our liberties for the common good' and the idea that 'we must vote for this politician even though he doesn't like freedom because he is tough on terrorism' will not go away in the foreseeable future.
We should never sacrifice liberty for "the common good," so isn't the current "emergency" a perfect time for us to teach that lesson?
'we must vote for this politician even though he doesn't like freedom because he is tough on terrorism'
I don't know who's been telling you that. At least in America, the tough-on-terror politicians tend to be more liberty-minded.
-
We should never sacrifice liberty for "the common good," so isn't the current "emergency" a perfect time for us to teach that lesson?
Yes. But is that what we have been doing as a society? As in, obviously some people have been, but I think it's not all that much of a stretch to say that people in the West (Americans to a lesser extent than Europeans) had lost some of their freedom.
Furthermore, it is not possible to eradicate terrorism, just like it isn't possible to eradicate murder. Of course, this does not mean the police should not prosecute murderers, but imagine we declared an 'emergency' until all murder is eradicated. Wouldn't this emergency last forever?
I don't know who's been telling you that. At least in America, the tough-on-terror politicians tend to be more liberty-minded.
As compared to whom? To Hillary Clinton? Of course.
But within the movement itself, less 'tough-on-terror' people such as paleoconservatives and libertarians, had been marginalized on this basis. As far as I understand its, guys like Pat Buchanan have been driven entirely out because they could not provide a 'solution' to terrorism.
I have read in several sources – and now, I cannot back this up, and I will happily admit being wrong – that before 9/11, Bush and his team were planning to focus on spending cuts throughout the Presidency, and that after 9/11 they had been forced to change this policy, in part to preserve their political capital for the task of backing up the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't know if it is true, but it seems tragic to me that a giant opportunity to continue what Reagan had started had been wasted. And at least in part (with Iraq) it's still not clear whether that was a good idea to even do that.
Now, I am not a great fan of the Islamo-idiot faction – I can't really be a fan of people who shelled my town and murdered a woman four blocks away from me, can I? - but I just don't think they're such a huge global existential threat they're made out to be.
I have an aversion to the way that news media take a ghastly and terrible event – Columbine, 9/11, a child-kidnapping or some other ghastly atrocity – and make it out as if 'the world has now changed' and 'the old concepts' no longer apply. Obviously, I am not a friend of the violent butt-head du jour, but it does not mean every time something bad happens we must stand on our heads and rewrite society all over.
We already have ways to deal with people like this. We have police and the military and the courts, ad of course we have armed citizens. This doesn't mean we should pile on more paramilitary cops with heavier and heavier gear, or start wand-probing more citizens, or putting cameras on every street corner – as people had already done in a variety of countries (bear in mind I'm not just talking about America here).
-
MB, you must understand that the U.S. of A. hasn't had to deal with the same things Israel is long accustomed to until the events of 11 Sep 2001.
Even the WTC parking garage bombings and Timothy McVeigh were but minor annoyances, and Hezbollah or Tel Aviv is something you normally read about, but don't give much thought to.
So, to the average American, the world actually did change on 11 Sep 01. I refer to their immediate, tangible world, where they're reminded every time they step on an airliner, or send their children off to Iraq or Afghanistan. The War on Terrorism is the mindset that resulted - no different, really, than slogans during WWII to recycle materials or buy War Bonds. It struck home, and even a 17 year old girl named Eliza Gauger got involved with her artwork:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmauser98.com%2Fmommy_liberty.jpg&hash=048e890f4df67d86d9b47a8c8d6d728337874a0e)
-
Frankly, I don't see most of the people I know being much affected by 9/11. They should be, but they aren't.
-
MB, you must understand that the U.S. of A. hasn't had to deal with the same things Israel is long accustomed to until the events of 11 Sep 2001.
This is true. But as I've said, Americans are now reacting – politically – the same way Israelis have been reacting for years. Many people here in fact (not in the media, but I've seen people saying this in conversations) had basically said that 'now the Americans will understand what life is for us'. Israel has long lived the permanent emergency, and it hasn't been good for Israel. I don't think that living the permanent emergency will be good for America, either.
-
I believe there's a difference, MB.
Israel gets constant reminders about terrorist threats on an almost regular basis. It sucks for you, but that's how it goes.
We haven't had a really good one for just over 8 years, now. Our awareness here is somewhat cyclical, and will swing only when another event gives it a push.
Few remember Pearl Harbor, and the memory of 9/11 has already begun to fade in some circles.
Internet Keyboard Kommandos though we are, it really isn't healthy to live every day in Jeff Cooper's Condition Orange. (Although if I lived in certain parts of Israel, I'd probably be in that preparedness state more often than Condition Yellow.)
-
I hope you didn't somehow understand my post as an implication that America should somehow imitate Israel. On the contrary, I find the "permanent emergency, forever" approach to the problem very counterproductive.
-
I hope you didn't somehow understand my post as an implication that America should somehow imitate Israel. On the contrary, I find the "permanent emergency, forever" approach to the problem very counterproductive.
What I also find interesting is that "permanent emergency" describes a good deal of the anti-terrorist legislation and efforts in the UK (ID cards, liquid on planes, IT databases tracking all movements in and out of country etc) since 2001.
Outside of parts of Northern Ireland, and certain dubious legal practices engaged in, I don't remember the portion of my life leading to the IRA ceasefire as being like this. Still no bins in most railway stations though.
-
Alexander the Great had 4 years of the "fiercest battles and grave losses to his army, physically, mentally and financially." He didn't really succeed, imho, except that he married the daughter of a local chieftain after he went on to central Asia and then come back to Afghanistan with 100,000 conscripts and only conquered 4 areas, then goes back to India and not long after dies. 4 satraps rule the 4 areas of A'stan after his death, but basically they become absorbed back into the local tribal culture after a time.
In otherwords, it might be better to withdraw, maintain a covert presence if possible and contain any exportation of "terrah" using stealthy methods of selective "removal" of troublesome folks.
-
Yes. But is that what we have been doing as a society? As in, obviously some people have been, but I think it's not all that much of a stretch to say that people in the West (Americans to a lesser extent than Europeans) had lost some of their freedom.
Furthermore, it is not possible to eradicate terrorism, just like it isn't possible to eradicate murder. Of course, this does not mean the police should not prosecute murderers, but imagine we declared an 'emergency' until all murder is eradicated. Wouldn't this emergency last forever?
I'm not sure where we disagree here, if at all. It seems we both deplore the notion of sacrificing liberty for security. And I think we both agree that murder, terror, and other evils can never be "eradicated," but should still be fought at some level.
One area where I would disagree is your apparent belief that thinking of anti-terror efforts as a "War on Terror" or thinking that "the world has changed" is necessarily the sort of fear-mongering that leads to infringement of liberties. I just don't think that's the case. And I certainly don't see a problem with my local police being "at war with murder" or any other crime, on a permanent basis. I rather hope they are. I think the Libertarian Party could safely refer to their free-market platform as a "War on Poverty," without turning to "Great Society" programs.
But within the movement itself, less 'tough-on-terror' people such as paleoconservatives and libertarians, had been marginalized on this basis. As far as I understand its, guys like Pat Buchanan have been driven entirely out because they could not provide a 'solution' to terrorism.
I have read in several sources – and now, I cannot back this up, and I will happily admit being wrong – that before 9/11, Bush and his team were planning to focus on spending cuts throughout the Presidency, and that after 9/11 they had been forced to change this policy, in part to preserve their political capital for the task of backing up the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't know if it is true, but it seems tragic to me that a giant opportunity to continue what Reagan had started had been wasted. And at least in part (with Iraq) it's still not clear whether that was a good idea to even do that.
People like Pat Buchanan were already marginalized.
I get tired of the logical fallacy of "we could have done that, but now we can't do that, because we're doing something else." Spending billions more on national defense just gives more urgency to the idea of cutting spending in other areas. The problem is not with the post-9/11 policy, but with the pre and post-9/11 leftist fallacy that we must spend trillions of dollars on unconstitutional, counter-productive and/or just-plain-wasteful government programs.
And, really, how could one defend a Bush administration that decided to ignore terrorism in favor of cutting the budget?
-
And I certainly don't see a problem with my local police being "at war with murder" or any other crime, on a permanent basis. I rather hope they are.
Actually, this is the perfect analogy.
Murder is evil, as I am sure everybody agrees.
Yet police forces throughout the world manage to struggle against it, arrest murderers, put them in prison, and reduce crime rates, without declaring an emergency. Normally, that is.
Now imagine there was a particularly grisly one in your town, maybe nvolving an ax and a troop of Girl Scouts. Would it be advisable to declare a 'war on murder' then, to (say) suspend trial by jury, and quadruple the amount of police until murder was eradicated entirely, and state 'we either crush murder entirely or we don't)? No, the way to handle this would be through the existing mechanisms of police officers and district attorneys and fair trial. There's no need to change the rules each time a grisly horrible thing happens.
I get tired of the logical fallacy of "we could have done that, but now we can't do that, because we're doing something else."
Political capital is limited. The attention span of the public is limited. If you spend your political capital on promoting one thing, you can't spend it on another.
And, really, how could one defend a Bush administration that decided to ignore terrorism in favor of cutting the budget?
This is a logical fallacy. I've never advocated 'ignoring terrorism'. I'm not sure why you think I did.
-
Yet police forces throughout the world manage to struggle against it, arrest murderers, put them in prison, and reduce crime rates, without declaring an emergency. Normally, that is.
There's no need to change the rules each time a grisly horrible thing happens.
I don't know that any Western nation has declared a permanent "state of emergency" over terrorism. Perhaps in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack, but I don't think either of us would have a problem with that. Of course, I may be ill-informed.
There's nothing inherently wrong with changing the rules after something happens that exposes a weakness or insufficiency in the status quo, but I think I see what you're saying.
But again, I think we're just having a semantic argument, even while we basically agree. I just wish people wouldn't get hung up over phrases like "War on Terror."
Political capital is limited. The attention span of the public is limited. If you spend your political capital on promoting one thing, you can't spend it on another.
Wow, for once you're speaking like a political realist. :O But what I proposed was that the two issues needed to be promoted at once. As in, "we must de-fund x, y and z, to fund the G,W,O and T."
This is a logical fallacy. I've never advocated 'ignoring terrorism'. I'm not sure why you think I did.
Maybe "ignoring terrorism" were the wrong words to use, but you did suggest that Bush should have put more emphasis on cutting spending than national defense. Let me quote you:...Bush and his team were planning to focus on spending cuts throughout the Presidency, and that after 9/11 they had been forced to change this policy, in part to preserve their political capital for the task of backing up the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't know if it is true, but it seems tragic to me that a giant opportunity to continue what Reagan had started had been wasted. And at least in part (with Iraq) it's still not clear whether that was a good idea to even do that.
-
But again, I think we're just having a semantic argument, even while we basically agree. I just wish people wouldn't get hung up over phrases like "War on Terror."
I don't think it has anything to do with GWOT. I can easily part with the term. I think it's a general intellectual failure of modern society and how we debate issues in the public square.
The mass-media love scaring us and being morally outraged and so forth. Each time some smacktard shoots people in a school or college we hear of a gun violence emergency which leads to the idea that we must reconsider our gun laws. This is not unique to the United States – this has happened in Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre) and Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Spree_shootings_in_Canada) and Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:School_killings_in_Germany). Every time something horrible happens the media use the opportunity to hammer us about how scared we should be and how everything is different now. When we find some gruesome case of child abuse, we stampede to reform the CPS system so it's easier to 'protect' children by taking them from their parents, and so forth.
I have nothing against the military aspects of the anti-terrorist operations that America is engaged in around the world. What
Maybe "ignoring terrorism" were the wrong words to use, but you did suggest that Bush should have put more emphasis on cutting spending than national defense
My argument in a nutshell is two-fold on this:
1.As a reasonable human being, I believe it is reasonable to temporarily have agendas other than individual liberty when your nation is facing destruction at the face of an existential threat. When the Nazis and the Japanese are coming to rape your houses, burn the horses, and ride away on the women, it's justifiable that, in the face of real emergencies and a real existential threat, you introduce a military draft, and military censorship, and emergency taxes. When Soviets are menacing America, it is reasonable to have US involvement all over the world trying to deter Communist expansion.
But the difference between then and now was, first of all, that these hostilities had a defined end. When Germany and Japan were defeated, most of the emergency provisions slowly went away. When Vietnam ended, the draft ended too. America has historically been very good at this. But now we have an undefined period of emergency (what is 'Terrorism'? Are we going to fight until every last terrorist is dead'). How on Earth can it be over?
Furthermore, the terrorists do not pose an existential threat to the United States. At worst, they can carry out a few more murders – they have been so far less dangerous than ordinary criminals. Just as ordinary criminals can be dealt with through the ordinary legal system, the terrorists can be deal with by the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and other government agencies. The threat of 20,000 illiterate idiots is not commensurate at all with the threat once posed by the USSR, Germany, or Japan. There are more Crip gang members than Al-Quaeda members. Where the Nazi threat justified an emergency response, those guys do not. Even in Israel, I believe we overreact to the threat of Hezbullah and such organization. To react like this in America is ridiculous.
2.Consider the following experiment. Suppose you had a choice to either retain the status quo, or set America – and by extension, Western Civilization – free. Suppose you could do it overnight. Imagine being able to press a button, and the Welfare State crumbles and goes away, overnight. Thousands of people who are in prison for having guns too short or too long are immediately freed. The graduated income tax is instantly repealed. The leftists are vanquished on every possible front of human endeavour. Government shrinks 70% or more.
The downside, of course, is that America quits on Iraq and Afghanistan. I would argue that this would be worth it – if such a thing were ever on the table.
Which it isn't. I suggest however that if, instead of creating the DHS and waging the war in Iraq, we could be made freer, then we would be better off as a civilization, in the long run. This does not mean that I want to 'surrender to the terrorists'.
I mean to say that greater individual liberty is a far more important civilizational goal at the moment than defeating a group of evil, and yet completely inept, illiterate people.
-
Internet Keyboard Kommandos though we are...
Hey, noob, I'll have you know I'm a Tactical Operator - Internet Loquacity Expert Technician (T.O.-I.L.E.T.) Show some respect.
Micro, I think we agree on that first part. As for part two, I don't know why you pose that experiment. Bush wasn't presented with that choice. He did some things he thought he had to do, to deal with a situation that changed. And it's not as if the administration didn't deal with other things. Remember the tax cuts, or the attempt to save Social Security, or the infamous Immigration "Reform"?
-
Hey, noob, I'll have you know I'm a Tactical Operator - Internet Loquacity Expert Technician (T.O.-I.L.E.T.) Show some respect.
Sgt. Flush....is that you?....everyone thought you died from the chlorine attack at the battle of Charmin....
-
Micro, I think we agree on that first part. As for part two, I don't know why you pose that experiment. Bush wasn't presented with that choice.
Which I never said he was:
if such a thing were ever on the table. Which it isn't.
I am using an extreme exaggeration of the issue to point out where my priorities lie.
I do however believe that Bush's tax cuts – and I love tax cuts! - were only beginning to scratch the surface of the problem The Administration had essentially ignored spending and regulation as issues (as compared to what Reagan had done in these areas), not so much because Bush was a great fan of spending, but because, I think, they had only this much political capital to spend.
-
I understand all that, but you're still over-estimating how much the GWOT got in the way of the domestic agenda. Just as an example, Bush spent a lot of "capital" on the immigration issue, that he could have used to cut spending, etc. I fear you may be making the same mistake (about the Bush administration) that some made about the Iraq War vis-a-vis the Afghanistan War. A lot of people seemed to assume that, because the media, punditry and politicians were fascinated with the Iraq War, that the military or the Administration had forgotten about A-stan. Just because Bush is remembered as the GWOT president doesn't mean he wasn't doing other things.
One might also ask how much "Reagan Reform" Bush really wanted to do, or how much he could have gotten through. We have seen how spend-thrifty was his Congress.
-
Sgt. Flush....is that you?....everyone thought you died from the chlorine attack at the battle of Charmin....
If Fistful ever disappears I'll check mt M1 septic Tank to see if he is trying to drive it around.
MicroBalrog, I haven't talked to my old friend from Israel in about five years. Your post's remind me of our talks. Thanks.
jim
-
I've come to believe that the political aim with both war theaters is to attrit our military capability while beefing up resumes for future bureaucratic advancement within the ranks. I don't see how anyone can seriously think that our strategy in either Iraq or Afghanistan, after all this time, is addressing the real and deeper issue of how we secure our own national interests for the long-term.
We now have the most veteran-heavy modern military on the face of the Earth. Yes, their opponents have been irregulars, but they have still BTDT. IOW, any other regional/great power would be insane to challenge our veteran military, as such veteran organizations are much more effective than green formations.
Careerists will take care of each other, sure enough.
Personally, trying to make a decent country of Afghanistan to be a fool's errand. I figure we'll have to bomb them out or drain the swamp periodically in perpetuity.
-
Personally, trying to make a decent country of Afghanistan to be a fool's errand. I figure we'll have to bomb them out or drain the swamp periodically in perpetuity.
QFT
-
Just as an example, Bush spent a lot of "capital" on the immigration issue, that he could have used to cut spending, etc.
This is also true. But I would argue that Bush doesn't exclusively own the problem. I would argue conservative leadership in general dropped the ball.
-
This is also true. But I would argue that Bush doesn't exclusively own the problem. I would argue conservative leadership in general dropped the ball.
When was the last time there was conservative leadership in Washington?
-
When was the last time there was conservative leadership in Washington?
A valid point. Perhaps the use of some other term is in order?
-
I believe 'Republican' is the correct term for what you have in mind.
-
I believe 'Republican' is the correct term for what you have in mind.
Yes, but I would argue that the problem extends beyond people who are formally members of the party.
-
Yes, but I would argue that the problem extends beyond people who are formally members of the party.
Who do you mean? Extends to who?
-
Who says the terrorists--and their financial backers--do not pose an existential threat to America? I think that's a bit naive, even though I am not suggesting by any means that we turn this nation into a police state to combat the danger posed. The answer need not come from a top-down collective policy; 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.
As for the "war on terror," this was always a euphemism. The real war, since the Enlightenment, has always been against autocracy, authoritarianism, and absolutism. In different times it takes different forms, but it is always about mesmeric mind-control and the suppression of the individual. Whether it's Nazism, Communism, or Islamism makes little difference.
-
Who says the terrorists--and their financial backers--do not pose an existential threat to America? I think that's a bit naive, even though I am not suggesting by any means that we turn this nation into a police state to combat the danger posed. The answer need not come from a top-down collective policy; 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.
As for the "war on terror," this was always a euphemism. The real war, since the Enlightenment, has always been against autocracy, authoritarianism, and absolutism. In different times it takes different forms, but it is always about mesmeric mind-control and the suppression of the individual. Whether it's Nazism, Communism, or Islamism makes little difference.
It's beyond fantasy to think that a terrorist group poses an "existential threat" to America. There is no such group with the numbers or weapons, of any kind, to destroy it.
America is perfectly capable of destroying itself through constant "emergency laws" and decades long wars that drain money which otherwise would've been used to grow the economy and keep things in order during hard times.
The Afghanistan war is now a colossal waste of time and money, and the media reports on it are farcical - I'm thinking of Fareed Zakaria's piece where he claims that Afghans aren't really opposed to our presence and that the Taliban can be successfully paid to play ball.
If we'd spent the same money we spent on that war rooting out the terrorist networks in Europe and America (where the 9/11 plot actually came together operationally and found funding), we'd be many times safer.
Running around the mountains amongst a people that do not want us there trying to find figureheads is a waste. Bin Laden can make all the videos he wants as long as all the henchmen are caught as they plan attacks in Florida.
-
Perhaps you know more about the network than I. What I know is what most here know: it is not beyond the realm of possibility for terrorist groups to acquire small nuclear devices and/or bioterror weapons. I don't know about you but I'd call the probable impact of that definitely "existential." Add an EMP strike to that list. Unlikely? Perhaps, but, we once thought, were airliners crashing into skyscrapers.
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.
Sometimes an endowed chair can be more explosive than a truckload of plastique.
-
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. 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.
So when we answer the question of "existentialism," what have we decided?
-
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
Were the Barbary Pirates an existential threat?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
OK, sure. =|
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
. . . "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. =(
-
"Nation-building"--abroad and at home...
-
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.