Charlie Wilsons War.

[Scout26]

No, I havent seen the movie.  I dont do movies.

But I did see the History channel show about the movie.  They even had Charlie Wilson and some of the other players on the show telling their part of the story.

The thing that struck me was at the end. 

Heres Charlie Wilson aka The Liberal from Lufkin and he states that what we left a vacuum in Afghanistan after the Soviets were defeated.  Which, he stated, enabled the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to arise.   

This is why I dont understand why the Paulites, Democrats, et al. are saying To be safe we need to immediately, if not sooner pull out of Iraq???   Or am I missing something ??

Ive looked over US history and when weve stayed and helped rebuild after defeating an enemy, they generally dont (at least physically) attack us and remain very peaceful countries.  When weve defeated an enemy and then promptly left, the situation has generally gone to hell in a hand basket.

So why would pulling out of Iraq buck the historical trend

[El Tejon]

Because Iraq is not mentioned in the Constitution.  Further, we need to get back to the pressing business of smoking dope in our moms' basements.

[Bigjake]

here here!   and intarwebz poll skewing!!

[Nitrogen]

my problem isn't with the war so much, as the money it's costing.

either raise taxes to pay for the war, or stop the war.

[Bogie]

And then a few years after we stop the war, we can lose a few trillion when some lunatic pops a truckload of C4 and radwaste in the middle of Chicago...

[brer]

And there is proof that the current adinistration can stop something like that? I mean their record so far is excellent. [/sarcasm]

Hints and hand helpers.  Quitting bombing moslem countries might make moslems quit getting pissed at us.

[roo_ster]

And there is proof that the current adinistration can stop something like that? I mean their record so far is excellent. [/sarcasm]

Hints and hand helpers.  Quitting bombing moslem countries might make moslems quit getting pissed at us.

Actually, Bushco has done pretty well, considering there has been no major attack on US soil since 9-11.  All the follow-on attacks that were in any way spectacular were on foreign soil.  Let us hope they keep it up.

As to your hints: How did we earn the ire of the Barbary Pirates?  We didn't bomb them or do anything more threatening than sail the Med, yet they still attacked us, until we crushed them and earned their respect.

[De Selby]

Comparing the war today to the situation with the barbary pirates will yield no good lessons.  We dealt with them by making treaties with bigger pirates-not by crushing them.  The Treaty of Tripoli is a good example of how Jefferson managed the situation-he did it by getting on his knees and repeating over and over how friendly the Americans would be to any Bey who would help them.  And then he sent an army to aid some of the pirates against other pirates-to prove his loyalty and kinship to them. 

The main battle in the barbary wars, in any case, was inter-European.  It had little to do with what the barbary states were doing, and more to do with what the Europeans wanted to do with each other (and the US).  Which is evidenced by the fact that France and England promptly colonized and pillaged these areas immediately following the barbary wars-so much for "western civilization", it seems.

Not a good model to follow today, imho.

The US supported religious radicals in the 80's in Afghanistan-these same radicals murdered the leading women's rights activist in the country, and created the lawless society out of which the racist Taliban movement arose. 

The most sad fact of the entire war in Afghanistan was that, under the guise of protecting freedom, we armed and trained a force that was far, far worse than the Russian backed communists in nearly every department of personal freedom.  Of all the governments Afghanistan has suffered in the past 20 years, the Russian-communist system was by far the most advanced on women's rights, religious freedom, education, and infrastructure building.

[roo_ster]

Well, we did not have to attack any muslim country for the BPs to tear into us.  This is a fact in contradiction of brer's contention.

...in 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, then serving as American ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively, met in London with the Tripolitan Ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja. These future American presidents were attempting to negotiate a peace treaty which would spare the United States the ravages of jihad piracymurder, enslavement (with ransoming for redemption), and expropriation of valuable commercial assetsemanating from the Barbary states (modern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya). During their discussions, they questioned Ambassador Adja as to the source of the unprovoked animus directed at the nascent United States republic. Jefferson and Adams, in their subsequent report to the Continental Congress, recorded the Tripolitan Ambassadors justification:

 & that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise

No attacks were required by us to get the BPs to be hostile.

You were right, in that TJ did not finish off the BPs.  He foolishly took some action, but then came to a mutually-agreeable settlement before grinding them up.  It took until 1815 to polish off the savages:

...President Madison commissioned two naval squadrons led by Commodores William Bainbridge and Stephen Decatur, and dispatched them to the Barbary States in May, 1815. By June/July 1815 the ably commanded U.S. naval forces had dealt their Barbary jihadist adversaries a quick series of crushing defeats. These U.S. victories were solidified by what London terms unprecedented treaty agreements forced upon the Barbary states, which ..made practically no concessions and stood very firm on every pointthe abolition of all tribute; release of all American prisoners currently held, and acknowledgement that no future American prisoners of war could be enslaved; the payment of indemnities; and the restoration of American properties held by the dey.

1.  No aggression by the US was required for the BPs to be aggressive towards us
2.  Treating with them as if they were rational actors by coming to mutually-agreeable terms that left both parties largely intact were unsuccessful
3.  Relief from BO aggression only occurred after dealing them crushing defeats

[LAK]

Ive looked over US history and when weve stayed and helped rebuild after defeating an enemy, they generally dont (at least physically) attack us and remain very peaceful countries

Look at the history of central asia and attempts to do this.

When are we set to "defeat the enemy", "rebuild" and pull out of afghanistan?

-------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[seeker_two]

Ive looked over US history and when weve stayed and helped rebuild after defeating an enemy, they generally dont (at least physically) attack us and remain very peaceful countries

Look at the history of central asia and attempts to do this.

When are we set to "defeat the enemy", "rebuild" and pull out of afghanistan?

The problem is.....we didn't finish crushing the enemy in Iraq & Afghanistan before we started the nation-building. In WWII, we almost annihilated Germany & were prepared to do the same to Japan (by A-bomb or invasion) before we went in, maintained control over there government and resources (for reparation to us and them) for decades, and then granted independence. You can't do that in a couple of years.

We'll have to fight this war again....soon. I hope then we'll have the stomach to do it right....

[De Selby]

jfruser,

That history totally ignores the real threat in the Barbary wars, which was European aggression.  The entire campaign makes absolutely no sense whatsoever if you ignore the English/French/American ocean battle that was going on at the time.  Of course your sources would be particularly susceptible to that-Andrew Bostom is a full time anti-Islam polemicist, not a historian.  So of course when you read his articles, you don't read about anything that doesn't have to do with Muslims.

The animus wasn't unprovoked-in large measure it was provoked by British and French machinations for their own purposes, and the Barbary states allied with different parties at different times-sometimes even with the U.S.  To try and make that out to be an example of religious warfare stretches the imagination beyond limits.

[De Selby]

Ive looked over US history and when weve stayed and helped rebuild after defeating an enemy, they generally dont (at least physically) attack us and remain very peaceful countries

Look at the history of central asia and attempts to do this.

When are we set to "defeat the enemy", "rebuild" and pull out of afghanistan?

The problem is.....we didn't finish crushing the enemy in Iraq & Afghanistan before we started the nation-building. In WWII, we almost annihilated Germany & were prepared to do the same to Japan (by A-bomb or invasion) before we went in, maintained control over there government and resources (for reparation to us and them) for decades, and then granted independence. You can't do that in a couple of years.

We'll have to fight this war again....soon. I hope then we'll have the stomach to do it right....

How will it be "done right" in Afghanistan?

The Taliban was most certainly crushed within year one of this war-it got rehabilitated and rearmed as a result of the looters that are running Kabul under Karzai. 

You can't finish crushing the enemy in a place like Afghanistan because the enemy is generally the entire population, which doesn't want you or anyone else (or even their own neighbors, a lot of the time) there.

[roo_ster]

SS has a good point.  To do it any "righter" than we have currently would require an operation similar to what Rome did to Carthage, the last time they "did" Carthage in the Third Punic War:

Many Carthaginians died from starvation during the latter part of the siege, while many others died in the final six days of fighting. When the war ended, the remaining 50,000 Carthaginians, a small part of the original pre-war population, were sold into slavery.

The city was systematically burned for somewhere between 10 and 17 days. Then the city walls, its buildings and its harbour were utterly destroyed and, according to an unsubstantiated[1] 20th-century historiographical tradition, the surrounding territory was supposedly sown with salt to ensure that nothing would grow there again.

The remaining Carthaginian territories were annexed by Rome and constituted the Roman province of Africa. The site of Carthage was later rebuilt as a Roman city.

1. Make war on them and kill them where you find them
2. Those few captured are sent packing elsewhere, preferably many different "elsewheres."
3. Every bit of thier culture and material presence is destroyed
4. New colonists are brought in to populate the area and rebuild it as a satellite

That would do the trick, as the Romans and many others proved over the years, even to folks holed up in the mountains.

If we are not willing to do the heavy lifting a "once & for all" answer would require, we can expect to be back in Afghanistan in the future.  I don't consider the lack of a "long term" or "once and for all" solution a failure.  Human nature and entropy are always tugging at the bit of organization and civilization humans have built.  It requires constant maintenance to not slide into chaos.

[roo_ster]

jfruser,

That history totally ignores the real threat in the Barbary wars, which was European aggression.  The entire campaign makes absolutely no sense whatsoever if you ignore the English/French/American ocean battle that was going on at the time.  Of course your sources would be particularly susceptible to that-Andrew Bostom is a full time anti-Islam polemicist, not a historian.  So of course when you read his articles, you don't read about anything that doesn't have to do with Muslims.

The animus wasn't unprovoked-in large measure it was provoked by British and French machinations for their own purposes, and the Barbary states allied with different parties at different times-sometimes even with the U.S.  To try and make that out to be an example of religious warfare stretches the imagination beyond limits.

SS, I am not ignorant of the Napoleonic wars and the War of 1812.  Aside from Napoleon's sacking of Malta, they are of little import with regard to America's dealing with the BPs.

The French & Brits had gained safe passage of their ships by means of punishing & convincing attacks on the BPs.  America fiddled around with tribute when we had no Navy sufficient to the task of setting the BP's straight.

As to the "real threat" in the Barbary Wars, it was not European aggression.  That must be some of Edward Said's tripe.  The threat was the BP's attacking shipping, enslaving captives, and ransoming governments.

[De Selby]

jfruser,

True about punic wars and the comparison-the problem is that today, they would probably find a way to employ nuclear weapons such that our society would be as devastated, if not more so, than theirs. 

The barbary wars most certainly had to do with Britain and France-it was not coincidence that this was the time when Britain burned the whitehouse, and that France shortly after invaded and colonized most of North Africa.  Just like the Beys and the Ottoman strategic moves had little to nothing to do with "islamic motives", the war in the mediterranean had little to do with "responding to unprovoked attacks."  It was part of a European imperial war, just like the war of 1812, just like most of the wars that involved any European party to any extent during this time.

Europeans were aggressive imperialists; the only difference between them and the Ottomans at this time was that they had better war-making machines, so they conquered more territory and enslaved more people.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

jfruser,

True about punic wars and the comparison-the problem is that today, they would probably find a way to employ nuclear weapons such that our society would be as devastated, if not more so, than theirs. 

The Jihadis don't have the means to devastate our society like we do theirs.  I don't think they truly comprehend what we could do to their world if we chose to unleash our full might.  They keep poking us in the eye, thinking that it's safe.  Well, it is safe, but only because we exercise a saintly degree of restraint.  If they ever hurt us enough for us to decide to go Jihad against them, the results will be genocidal in scale. 

[De Selby]

jfruser,

True about punic wars and the comparison-the problem is that today, they would probably find a way to employ nuclear weapons such that our society would be as devastated, if not more so, than theirs. 

The Jihadis don't have the means to devastate our society like we do theirs.  I don't think they truly comprehend what we could do to their world if we chose to unleash our full might.  They keep poking us in the eye, thinking that it's safe.  Well, it is safe, but only because we exercise a saintly degree of restraint.  If they ever hurt us enough for us to decide to go Jihad against them, the results will be genocidal in scale. 

Of course they do-there are nuclear weapons right there in their back yard.  I can't think of any remotely imaginable scenario where genocide gets perpertrated against the Afghanis, and the nuclear weapons available in Pakistan do not get used.  At a minimum, the network that built Pakistan's nukes will go somewhere else, start another nuclear program, and then aim at the US ASAP.  The idea that they could never, ever get nukes and use them is probably one of the more dangerous ideas to make the rounds in this country.

We exercise restraint because we realize that the next total war will most likely be the last one for us as much as the other guys.  (In addition to the fact that most of us don't believe in genocide.  But apparently that argument doesn't fare well with some circles.) 

The only realistic scenario for preventing such a situation would be exterminating every possible place where a nuclear program might develop in response to a criminal genocide campaign by the U.S.-that would mean exterminating about a third of the planet, which, as above, would not warrant any sane person's bet against someone else using nukes on the U.S. in retaliation.

I have a question for you that goes along with this:  In your opinion, would the use of nuclear weapons be morally justified to stop a genocidal nation in the process of exterminating another nation?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Pakistan doesn't have the means to wipe out the United States, their nuclear arsenal just isn't up to the task.  Further, the Jihadis don't have control over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.  My point stands, the Islamofascists flat out don't have the capability to do to us what we could do to them.  They exist as our enemies at our mercy.

You ask if it's justifiable to use nukes to prevent genocide.  I'm not sure that "right or wrong" applies to nukes.  People will do whatever they have to to survive.  Whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant.  So you can count on a persecuted people using their own nukes, if they have them, against their attackers.  At that point, the attackers find themselves in peril, and react in kind by using whatever nukes they have.  It becomes a question of whose arsenal is more capable.  If one nation or the other is only marginally powerful (such as any nation that tries to develop nukes clandestinely), it will likely be annihilated while the other nation suffers grievously but endures.

If the US was the perpetrator of genocide (perhaps against the Islamic world, in response to them well and terrifying us), I doubt that any of the world's other nuclear nations would use their nukes in retaliation against us.  First, anything that the Jihadis might do that is so horrific that it makes us resort to using our nukes, would probably be so horrific that the rest of the world would let us use them.  And even if not, the US possesses enough of an arsenal that we could annihilate several continents.  That means we could glass the middle east and play M.A.D. against anyone who might object. 

Like I said, people will do whatever they have to to survive.  If the American people ever feel like they're at the point where their survival is at stake, they'll do whatever they must.  Right or wrong isn't really a factor.

[De Selby]

Pakistan doesn't have the means to wipe out the United States, their nuclear arsenal just isn't up to the task.  Further, the Jihadis don't have control over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.  My point stands, the Islamofascists flat out don't have the capability to do to us what we could do to them.  They exist as our enemies at our mercy.

50 nukes couldn't do the trick? I don't think we'd be too happy after being hit by them.  And that's excluding the certainty that not only will the nukes they can use be used, the expertise to build them will go elsewhere and make more...to be used.

  And even if not, the US possesses enough of an arsenal that we could annihilate several continents.  That means we could glass the middle east and play M.A.D. against anyone who might object. 

How do you glass the middle east, south Asia, central asia, and southeast asia without annihilating the economies of most of the nuclear states in the world? 

Do you think that facing the prospect of having their societies ruined by having wastelands all around them might lead them to make a different calculation about M.A.D?

Like I said, people will do whatever they have to to survive.  If the American people ever feel like they're at the point where their survival is at stake, they'll do whatever they must.  Right or wrong isn't really a factor.

Right, but what's your opinion?  Where do you personally stand on using genocide, and using nuclear weapons to stop genocide?

[Manedwolf]

Pakistan doesn't have the means to wipe out the United States, their nuclear arsenal just isn't up to the task.  Further, the Jihadis don't have control over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.  My point stands, the Islamofascists flat out don't have the capability to do to us what we could do to them.  They exist as our enemies at our mercy.

50 nukes couldn't do the trick? I don't think we'd be too happy after being hit by them.  And that's excluding the certainty that not only will the nukes they can use be used, the expertise to build them will go elsewhere and make more...to be used.

Um. They do not have ICBMs capable of reaching the United States. They can hit Israel and India. Not us.

[De Selby]

Pakistan doesn't have the means to wipe out the United States, their nuclear arsenal just isn't up to the task.  Further, the Jihadis don't have control over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.  My point stands, the Islamofascists flat out don't have the capability to do to us what we could do to them.  They exist as our enemies at our mercy.

50 nukes couldn't do the trick? I don't think we'd be too happy after being hit by them.  And that's excluding the certainty that not only will the nukes they can use be used, the expertise to build them will go elsewhere and make more...to be used.

Um. They do not have ICBMs capable of reaching the United States. They can hit Israel and India. Not us.

ICBMs are not necessary to deliver nuclear weapons.  Osama knocked out the twin towers without having a single bomber at his disposal-there is absolutely no good reason to believe that the Pakistanis wouldn't come up with similar methods in this scenario.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Right, but what's your opinion?  Where do you personally stand on using genocide, and using nuclear weapons to stop genocide?

I'm against both nuclear war and genocide, as are all sane-minded people.  But humans are humans, and there are times when sanity takes a back seat to our primal natures, one of the greatest of which is urge to survive. 

The ability to question morality is a luxury reserved for people living in safe and stable times.

[De Selby]

I'm against both nuclear war and genocide, as are all sane-minded people.  But humans are humans, and there are times when sanity takes a back seat to our primal natures.  The ability to question morality is a luxury reserved for people living in safe and stable times.

Does this mean that, in your opinion, middle easterners and afghanis should not be held morally responsible for any support they might give to terrorists, since they don't have the luxury of safe times to sit back and worry about attacks on civilians?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'm against both nuclear war and genocide, as are all sane-minded people.  But humans are humans, and there are times when sanity takes a back seat to our primal natures.  The ability to question morality is a luxury reserved for people living in safe and stable times.

Does this mean that, in your opinion, middle easterners and afghanis should not be held morally responsible for any support they might give to terrorists, since they don't have the luxury of safe times to sit back and worry about attacks on civilians?

No, obviously it does not.

I'm curious, why would you ask such a stupid question?