Randall Parker at Parapundit has what the Neutralist believes are two useful posts. The first is,
Afhganistan Is Still Afghanistan
Happy pledges lead to happy outcomes.
JALALABAD, Afghanistan — Six weeks ago, elders of the Shinwari tribe, which dominates a large area in southeastern Afghanistan, pledged that they would set aside internal differences to focus on fighting the Taliban.
This is Afghanistan which is part of the planet Earth and we are all in a Global Village and all really similar to each other. Anyone who dares to say differently will get called bad names. We are all really similar. We can all just get along, live in the present, imagine all the people, and so on.
But something went wrong? How could that be?
This week, that commitment seemed less important as two Shinwari subtribes took up arms to fight each other over an ancient land dispute, leaving at least 13 people dead, according to local officials.
The story includes accusations of police giving weapons to one of the factions. The disagreement degenerated into the use of rocket-propelled grenades and mortar launchers. Obviously Afghanistan needs gun control. Probably a government program to control gang violence too.
Official US policy has been damaged by this incident. Oh my.
The fighting was a setback for American military officials, some of whom had hoped it would be possible to replicate the pledge elsewhere. It raised questions about how effectively the American military could use tribes as part of its counterinsurgency strategy, given the patchwork of rivalries that make up Afghanistan.
The US government wouldn't make policy for a country based on unjustified asumptions about human nature, would it?
This is intra tribal rivalry. What is the point of the whole exercise if we have to keep everybody on board down to this level.
The comments are worth stealing as well,
Stephen said at March 12, 2010 3:54 AM:
Probably means we're about due for the US to announce that its killed a senior Al Qaeda commander.
mike said at March 12, 2010 4:44 AM:
Ancient land dispute? How primitive. After all, no advanced or intelligent society would support a land grab just because it was "promised" to a certain people in a thousand year old religious book.
Black Death said at March 12, 2010 5:47 AM:
"Probably a government program to control gang violence too."
How about midnight basketball?
Randall's newer post is below.
Little Government In Kandahar Afghanistan
Practice makes perfect. US forces are going to try to gain control of Kandahar again.
In theory, the Afghan government is in place in Kandahar, but its authority is nominal. Bombings and assassinations have left the government largely isolated behind concrete barricades and blast walls. In the latest burst of violence, a suicide squad struck across the city late Saturday, detonating bombs at a recently fortified prison, the police headquarters and two other sites, the Associated Press reported. At least 30 people were killed.
For the first time in years, however, the U.S. military again has Kandahar in its sights.
American troops are seeking to reclaim the city and surrounding province, where the Taliban has proved resurgent, more than eight years after the U.S.-led invasion forced the group from power. But a visit here last week made clear that American forces will face an insidious enemy that operates mainly in the shadows and exercises indirect control through intimidation and by instilling fear. The provincial governor remains mostly behind barricades. The provincial council has trouble convening because many members have fled to Kabul. The police are viewed as ill-trained, corrupt and possibly in league with criminal gangs.
Yet US Defense Secretary Robert Gates still expects US troops to begin withdrawing no later than July 2011.
"We will begin that transition no later than July 2011, but the pace will depend also on conditions on the ground," Gates said after watching training exercises at Camp Blackhorse, where U.S. and British forces train Afghan soldiers.
Michael O'Hanlon and Hassina Sherjan say Afghanistan is pretty mild stuff compared to Iraq.
Also, the violence in Afghanistan today is far less severe than it was in Iraq. Before the troop surge in 2007, more Iraqi civilians were killed every month than have been killed from war-related violence in Afghanistan each year. In other words, Afghanistan is less than a tenth as violent as the Iraq of 2004-07. Communities were displaced and sectarian tensions were inflamed far more in Iraq than they have been in Afghanistan.
But low level violence is more business as usual in Afghanistan than it is in Iraq.
The major US goal in Afghanistan appears to be to leave a government in power that won't be overthrown by the Taliban when the US leaves. I do not see how the US can accomplish that goal. The Taliban families make new babies in large numbers. Defeat them now and in a few years a new generation will be old enough to take up the fight.
Why should defeating them this time be more effective? The creation of the Afghan Army is supposed to be the crucial difference that will allow US and NATO forces to withdraw. But will that army become an effective and loyal fighting force?
Moi, I wish I could set up a pool for online betting on the date the third battle for Kandahar and the second battle for Marjah will start.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Saturday, March 06, 2010
They know
The Southern Avenger, Mr. Jack Hunter, is accomplished in the art of the youtube video. Actually, I can’t say that the youtube video is art. Merely can I say that he goes farther with it than I could, which is not into the realm of overachieving.
Still, I generally agree with his thoughts even if he only hits a single. In his February 6, 2010 offering, he blasted it out of the park with just one tiny particle,
Comparing Paul’s foreign policy stance to that of the congressman’s fellow non-interventionist Pat Buchanan, Coulter added “Whenever I listen to Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan I always think ‘I can’t listen too long or they might convince me.”
Bingo. What Ann really said, once parsed is, I know they are right, but pretend they are wrong. I like to think she is not merely a shill, but if she abandoned neoconnery, to come over to the less financially lush side of non-interventionism, well maybe she would not be so fashionable. Ann doesn't really, really believe and the rest don't either.
Even if you hate the muzzies and think they all should be extirpated, you have to see, we are losing. It matters not how many of them we kill if we bankrupt ourselves. Granted, we are trying manfully and womanfully to ruin ourselves on many other non military fronts, but so what. Why waste the flower of our youth on a losing strategy.
Somehow, I think everyone with some modicum of intelligence, knows this. I’ll let others work out why they can’t say it. For now.
Also, the sensible policy of how to deal with Bin Laden was given us by Rep. Paul with a further comment by Mr. Hunter.
Despite what his critics portray, Paul’s approach to Islamic terrorism is not to ignore it, but to examine motive and develop a sound strategy by pinpointing our defense. Just one month after 9/11, Paul introduced the “Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001,” legislation that would have allowed Congress and the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates by placing a bounty on Al-Qaeda leaders. Paul said the Act “allows Congress to narrowly target terrorist enemies, lessening the likelihood of a full-scale war with any Middle Eastern nations. The Act also threatens terrorist cells worldwide by making it more difficult for our enemies to simply slip back into civilian populations or hide in remote locations… Once letters of marque and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man.”
In hindsight, what would have been the more conservative, productive approach after 9/11—spending three trillion dollars in Iraq or placing a $1billion bounty on Bin Laden and every other Al-Qaeda member’s head?
Watch the video here:
Still, I generally agree with his thoughts even if he only hits a single. In his February 6, 2010 offering, he blasted it out of the park with just one tiny particle,
Comparing Paul’s foreign policy stance to that of the congressman’s fellow non-interventionist Pat Buchanan, Coulter added “Whenever I listen to Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan I always think ‘I can’t listen too long or they might convince me.”
Bingo. What Ann really said, once parsed is, I know they are right, but pretend they are wrong. I like to think she is not merely a shill, but if she abandoned neoconnery, to come over to the less financially lush side of non-interventionism, well maybe she would not be so fashionable. Ann doesn't really, really believe and the rest don't either.
Even if you hate the muzzies and think they all should be extirpated, you have to see, we are losing. It matters not how many of them we kill if we bankrupt ourselves. Granted, we are trying manfully and womanfully to ruin ourselves on many other non military fronts, but so what. Why waste the flower of our youth on a losing strategy.
Somehow, I think everyone with some modicum of intelligence, knows this. I’ll let others work out why they can’t say it. For now.
Also, the sensible policy of how to deal with Bin Laden was given us by Rep. Paul with a further comment by Mr. Hunter.
Despite what his critics portray, Paul’s approach to Islamic terrorism is not to ignore it, but to examine motive and develop a sound strategy by pinpointing our defense. Just one month after 9/11, Paul introduced the “Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001,” legislation that would have allowed Congress and the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates by placing a bounty on Al-Qaeda leaders. Paul said the Act “allows Congress to narrowly target terrorist enemies, lessening the likelihood of a full-scale war with any Middle Eastern nations. The Act also threatens terrorist cells worldwide by making it more difficult for our enemies to simply slip back into civilian populations or hide in remote locations… Once letters of marque and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man.”
In hindsight, what would have been the more conservative, productive approach after 9/11—spending three trillion dollars in Iraq or placing a $1billion bounty on Bin Laden and every other Al-Qaeda member’s head?
Watch the video here:
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Yoo hoo, you can come out now. Well, Maybe not. Hiding under the bed conservatism, Part III
We are in the ninth year of our struggle against the forces of evil in the War on Terrorism. We must watch our backs constantly in this desperate fight against a foe that is cunning and evil. He is seeking every chance to strike at us and if we just drop our guard for a second, why, probably nothing will happen.
Yes, folks, you have nothing to fear but fear itself. Actually, you do have things to fear. Lots of them.. Fortunately, an attack from the Sons of Jihad is not likely to be one. This does not mean our friends to the east love us. Au contraire, we should be surprised if they did, what with all the drones and bombings and troops in their countries. Heck, I would feel the same toward them if they had brigades over here. They don't and they are not likely to either.
I know, I know, you have been propagandized to believe that without the work of all the folks in the Department of Fatherland Security there would be widespread death and destruction across the country. Why, were it not for the vigilance of our guardians, a man with explosive underwear could just get on a plane and.......
Still, the great holy war of death is, to be honest, the least of your worries. Don't take it from me. Take it from Ryan Singel in Wired. He did one of those color coded thingies like the color coded terror threat level the government has. I can't reproduce the colors, but the breakdown is below:
Red
S E V E R E
Driving off the road: 254,419
Falling: 146,542
Accidental poisoning: 140,327
Kind of yellow.
H I G H
Dying from work: 59,730
Walking down the street: 52,000.
Accidentally drowning: 38,302
Brighter yellow
E L E V A T E D
Killed by the flu: 19,415
Dying from a hernia: 16,742
Blue
G U A R D E D
Accidental firing of a gun: 8,536
Electrocution: 5,171
Green
L O W
Being shot by law enforcement: 3,949
Terrorism: 3147
Carbon monoxide in products: 1,554
As I have a greater chance of being shot by a cop than a Bin Ladenist, maybe we should fire all our police and hire members of Al Qaeda to staff our constabulary.
Mr. Singel should not have published this. When people read that they have a much greater chance of shuffling off the mortal coil by going to work, productivity in this country is going to nosedive.
So my fellow countrymen and women, don't come out from under the bed. Well don't fall out of bed. After all, a fall is up there in the severe category.
Lest you think it has been a long slog up from America as free fire zone to a near terrorist free garden of Eden, you may want to read the words of Paul Jackson. Jackson said basically the same thing Singel is telling, but he said it back in 2005.
These lads are a bit too pollyanish for me though. I have met terrorism dead on. Ah, almost dead on a few months ago here in hillbilly Nova Anglia. I was driving on a mountain road when out of nowhere a deer jumped in front of the car and crashed into my windshield. Had I been going faster or had someone been tailgating, another casualty of the enemy combatants would have been counted. Clever of the foe it was. They know that that doe could not have been on the no fly list.
The War on Terror is merely theater.
Yes, folks, you have nothing to fear but fear itself. Actually, you do have things to fear. Lots of them.. Fortunately, an attack from the Sons of Jihad is not likely to be one. This does not mean our friends to the east love us. Au contraire, we should be surprised if they did, what with all the drones and bombings and troops in their countries. Heck, I would feel the same toward them if they had brigades over here. They don't and they are not likely to either.
I know, I know, you have been propagandized to believe that without the work of all the folks in the Department of Fatherland Security there would be widespread death and destruction across the country. Why, were it not for the vigilance of our guardians, a man with explosive underwear could just get on a plane and.......
Still, the great holy war of death is, to be honest, the least of your worries. Don't take it from me. Take it from Ryan Singel in Wired. He did one of those color coded thingies like the color coded terror threat level the government has. I can't reproduce the colors, but the breakdown is below:
Red
S E V E R E
Driving off the road: 254,419
Falling: 146,542
Accidental poisoning: 140,327
Kind of yellow.
H I G H
Dying from work: 59,730
Walking down the street: 52,000.
Accidentally drowning: 38,302
Brighter yellow
E L E V A T E D
Killed by the flu: 19,415
Dying from a hernia: 16,742
Blue
G U A R D E D
Accidental firing of a gun: 8,536
Electrocution: 5,171
Green
L O W
Being shot by law enforcement: 3,949
Terrorism: 3147
Carbon monoxide in products: 1,554
As I have a greater chance of being shot by a cop than a Bin Ladenist, maybe we should fire all our police and hire members of Al Qaeda to staff our constabulary.
Mr. Singel should not have published this. When people read that they have a much greater chance of shuffling off the mortal coil by going to work, productivity in this country is going to nosedive.
So my fellow countrymen and women, don't come out from under the bed. Well don't fall out of bed. After all, a fall is up there in the severe category.
Lest you think it has been a long slog up from America as free fire zone to a near terrorist free garden of Eden, you may want to read the words of Paul Jackson. Jackson said basically the same thing Singel is telling, but he said it back in 2005.
These lads are a bit too pollyanish for me though. I have met terrorism dead on. Ah, almost dead on a few months ago here in hillbilly Nova Anglia. I was driving on a mountain road when out of nowhere a deer jumped in front of the car and crashed into my windshield. Had I been going faster or had someone been tailgating, another casualty of the enemy combatants would have been counted. Clever of the foe it was. They know that that doe could not have been on the no fly list.
The War on Terror is merely theater.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
More in sorrow
In the eighties, witch hunting hysteria returned to Massachusetts. Child abuse hunters targeted an innocent family north of Boston. The Amiraults, who ran a day care, were railroaded to prison on bizzare charges.
No one was more noble in championing the cause of the persecuted family than Wall Street Journal reporter, Dorothy Rabinowitz. Her columns in the Journal were tough and relentless. She was recently able to reprise her role during the campaign lost by the un lamented Matha, or is it Marcia, Coakley. The article not only brought the history of that sordid event back into view, it exposed Coakley as one twisted pol.
Sadly, Ms. Rabinowitz has demeaned herself with an article ostensibly on Sarah Palin. It seems she is a bit spooked by the recent success of Ron Paul. She is not the only one, but one expected more from her. A little of it is below.
Though it hasn't attracted wide attention, nothing Mrs. Palin has done recently has been worthier of notice than her endorsement of Rand Paul, now running in Kentucky's GOP senate primary. Dr. Paul, an opthamologist and radical libertarian, holds views on national security and defense that have much in common with those of the far left. Not to mention those of the considerable body of conspiracy theorists, antigovernment zealots, 9/11 truthers, and assorted other cadres of the obsessed and deranged who flocked to the presidential candidacy of his father Ron Paul, the congressman from Texas.
A bit sleazy. Come on Dorothy. We all know the press walked by all the normal well adjusted folks who liked Paul so they could find someone strange. You are doing to Paulistas what Coaks and her ilk did to the Amiraults.
You disgrace yourself.
No one was more noble in championing the cause of the persecuted family than Wall Street Journal reporter, Dorothy Rabinowitz. Her columns in the Journal were tough and relentless. She was recently able to reprise her role during the campaign lost by the un lamented Matha, or is it Marcia, Coakley. The article not only brought the history of that sordid event back into view, it exposed Coakley as one twisted pol.
Sadly, Ms. Rabinowitz has demeaned herself with an article ostensibly on Sarah Palin. It seems she is a bit spooked by the recent success of Ron Paul. She is not the only one, but one expected more from her. A little of it is below.
Though it hasn't attracted wide attention, nothing Mrs. Palin has done recently has been worthier of notice than her endorsement of Rand Paul, now running in Kentucky's GOP senate primary. Dr. Paul, an opthamologist and radical libertarian, holds views on national security and defense that have much in common with those of the far left. Not to mention those of the considerable body of conspiracy theorists, antigovernment zealots, 9/11 truthers, and assorted other cadres of the obsessed and deranged who flocked to the presidential candidacy of his father Ron Paul, the congressman from Texas.
A bit sleazy. Come on Dorothy. We all know the press walked by all the normal well adjusted folks who liked Paul so they could find someone strange. You are doing to Paulistas what Coaks and her ilk did to the Amiraults.
You disgrace yourself.
Monday, February 22, 2010
FAIL
I thought the Marjah offensive would be done. We had screamed that we were coming for so long that the Talibs should have got the message, bugging out who needed to be gone and a clever little retreat to take a few potshots and a couple of dead infidels et au revoir.
Well, it has not happened. The lads who use towels to cover their heads have shown a bit more sophistication then was expected. I guess we will eventually scour the place and send anyone who can't blend in packing. Still, it has not gone to plan.
That sneaky enemy has taken up the not fair tricks of Hezbollah or the NVA or ironically for marines, General Kuribayashi*.
Listening to Npr this morning, the embedded Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson was talking about the operation. Rules of engagement limit who the marines can shoot and when. It is to protect civilians so, I would guess, they won't think we suck when the fighting is done. When all the make nice rules don't work, an air strike is called in. There were several non taliban in the building who no longer have to worry about being alienated.
Also, heard on the radio this morning, a group of Ahghans fleeing the war were also struck from the air. Twenty-seven dead, and the usual regrets were voiced.
*An interesting book on how the people we fight respond to our hi tech war tactics and strategy is Phantom Soldier by John Poole.
Well, it has not happened. The lads who use towels to cover their heads have shown a bit more sophistication then was expected. I guess we will eventually scour the place and send anyone who can't blend in packing. Still, it has not gone to plan.
That sneaky enemy has taken up the not fair tricks of Hezbollah or the NVA or ironically for marines, General Kuribayashi*.
Listening to Npr this morning, the embedded Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson was talking about the operation. Rules of engagement limit who the marines can shoot and when. It is to protect civilians so, I would guess, they won't think we suck when the fighting is done. When all the make nice rules don't work, an air strike is called in. There were several non taliban in the building who no longer have to worry about being alienated.
Also, heard on the radio this morning, a group of Ahghans fleeing the war were also struck from the air. Twenty-seven dead, and the usual regrets were voiced.
*An interesting book on how the people we fight respond to our hi tech war tactics and strategy is Phantom Soldier by John Poole.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
If this is how our miltary prosecutes an offensive, they don't deserve to have any
Let’s imagine a bit of alternative history. In early May, 1944 newspaper headlines and radio broadcasts go out with the story, Allies to invade Normandy on or about June 6th. At German HQ, this conversation takes place. Dolph, “Zo, ist this ein trick?” Rommel, “Nein, Fuhrer, Das Allies have always announced before hand their plans.” Dolph, “Sehr Gut, General, plan accordingly.”
Fast forward to 2010 and the Coalition offensive at Marjah in Helmand Province. It was talked about for a long time in advance and was hardly unexpected. We telegraphed the punch and it appears the Taliban did what any good pugilist would. They ducked.
Anyone the Taliban wanted out of Marjah for strategic reasons surely left in time if only because they had all the time in the world to bug out. Anyone who stayed was part of a retreating defense. I have not been listening intensely but I have not heard any big body counts or pow takings. Not that one would feel confident in the reports. Have heard some happy talk about Afghan flags now flying above buildings. Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Oh and we have reports of some senior Taliban leaders captured in Pakistan. Supposedly, the lads were so big, insurgent effectiveness will be vastly depleted. Since young, I’ve been hearing about drug busts that had reduced the supply on the street to a negative amount. The Taliban arrests have that flavor.
Fast forward to 2010 and the Coalition offensive at Marjah in Helmand Province. It was talked about for a long time in advance and was hardly unexpected. We telegraphed the punch and it appears the Taliban did what any good pugilist would. They ducked.
Anyone the Taliban wanted out of Marjah for strategic reasons surely left in time if only because they had all the time in the world to bug out. Anyone who stayed was part of a retreating defense. I have not been listening intensely but I have not heard any big body counts or pow takings. Not that one would feel confident in the reports. Have heard some happy talk about Afghan flags now flying above buildings. Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Oh and we have reports of some senior Taliban leaders captured in Pakistan. Supposedly, the lads were so big, insurgent effectiveness will be vastly depleted. Since young, I’ve been hearing about drug busts that had reduced the supply on the street to a negative amount. The Taliban arrests have that flavor.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Lindsay will be Secretary of Obfuscation in the next Republican Administration
Senator Lindsay Graham gave the weekly radio response for the Republicans. Now, I did not hear the President's message so I am not completely aware of what the Senator is responding to. I do know he was upset that people would get a trial. Of course, it is not just any people. It's people he does not want to hear from.
Here are the Grahamster words,
Never before have we allowed non-citizen enemy combatants, captured on the battlefield, access to our civilian courts providing them with the same constitutional rights as American citizens. Al Qaeda terrorists should not receive more rights than a Nazi war criminal and now is not the time to go back to the pre-9/11 mentality of fighting crime instead of fighting a war.
He would be talking about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Your man was not captured on the battlefield. That is of course unless you consider an arrest in a house in Rawalpindi a battlefield. Also, that more rights than a Nazi war criminal business is a little silly. The Nazi trials were conducted in public. At Nuremberg the Germans had access to first rate counsel and Herman Goering was able to put prosecution lawyers on the defensive at times.
He wants to go back to the glory days of the Bush Administration when guys like Shoes Reid were tried by Military Commission. Oh, right. Bush tried Reid in an American court.
I suppose the big reason that Graham and his ilk do not want the trials to be in the Big Apple is fear. They are afraid of what might happen. A man waterboarded once, maybe that is not torture. I think it is, but I'll let it go. A man who was tortured 183 time was tortued. Maybe we'll look a little Naziish.
What if these guys get top notch counsel who can turn the tables on the tax dollars at work barristers. That would be embarrassing.
The conduct of the so called war on terror has been inept from day one. Our nation's strength ebbs apace yet no one learns.
Here are the Grahamster words,
Never before have we allowed non-citizen enemy combatants, captured on the battlefield, access to our civilian courts providing them with the same constitutional rights as American citizens. Al Qaeda terrorists should not receive more rights than a Nazi war criminal and now is not the time to go back to the pre-9/11 mentality of fighting crime instead of fighting a war.
He would be talking about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Your man was not captured on the battlefield. That is of course unless you consider an arrest in a house in Rawalpindi a battlefield. Also, that more rights than a Nazi war criminal business is a little silly. The Nazi trials were conducted in public. At Nuremberg the Germans had access to first rate counsel and Herman Goering was able to put prosecution lawyers on the defensive at times.
He wants to go back to the glory days of the Bush Administration when guys like Shoes Reid were tried by Military Commission. Oh, right. Bush tried Reid in an American court.
I suppose the big reason that Graham and his ilk do not want the trials to be in the Big Apple is fear. They are afraid of what might happen. A man waterboarded once, maybe that is not torture. I think it is, but I'll let it go. A man who was tortured 183 time was tortued. Maybe we'll look a little Naziish.
What if these guys get top notch counsel who can turn the tables on the tax dollars at work barristers. That would be embarrassing.
The conduct of the so called war on terror has been inept from day one. Our nation's strength ebbs apace yet no one learns.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
We suspend our fundraiser
The Neutralist occasionally announces a fundraiser that is known mostly for its failure. The terms are a minimum $10million per donor. This year, we are suspending the effort in favor of antiwar.com.
Antiwar.com is holding another one of its begathons and unlike public radio, they have earned support. After all, public radio has never forced the establishment to retreat if only because they are part of the establishment.
antiwar.com latest coup is the exposé of the AP story that the Iranians had enriched enough enriched enough weapons grade nuclear material to end civilization. Ah, maybe that was not the case. antiwar.com's Jason Ditz issued a refutation and et voilà, the original was withdrawn and a milder bit of screed put in place.
Now I should have such authority, but I don't. So give it where it will do the most good.
Of course, if you do have that spare 10 big ones lying around...........
Antiwar.com is holding another one of its begathons and unlike public radio, they have earned support. After all, public radio has never forced the establishment to retreat if only because they are part of the establishment.
antiwar.com latest coup is the exposé of the AP story that the Iranians had enriched enough enriched enough weapons grade nuclear material to end civilization. Ah, maybe that was not the case. antiwar.com's Jason Ditz issued a refutation and et voilà, the original was withdrawn and a milder bit of screed put in place.
Now I should have such authority, but I don't. So give it where it will do the most good.
Of course, if you do have that spare 10 big ones lying around...........
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Smoke without fire-All those jihadis who went back to the fight, not
Ah yes, remember the days when someone would come up with something that proved Saddam had nukes and then a few days later, the evidence would turn out to be, well, nothing really. Of course you don't if you are a normal American. Three minutes ago is ancient history here.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Well, it is happening again. Not about WMD in Iraq but one of the other places we have troops. Granted, that's a lot of places. You remember that place we invaded after 911 and never left and is popping up in the news again. Yes, it's called Afghanistan.
Well, we scooped up a lot of lads and gave them a vacation in the sun drenched Caribbean where we treated them with kid gloves. Ah, well maybe we were a tad harsh with some. Still, if it is in a higher cause, what the heck.
Now John Brennan, the assistant to President Obama for homeland security and counterterrorism has written that, [T]he Intelligence Community assesses that 20 percent of detainees transferred from Guantánamo are confirmed or suspected of recidivist activity. I find that shocking. To tell you the truth, if I had been held for years against my will, I'd certainly be wanting to get back at the nation that jailed me.
The thing about the recidivist figures is that they are bunk. Over at the Future Of Freedom Commentaries, Andy Worthington exposes it in Repeating Pentagon Lies on Gitmo Recidivism. It seems that the figures were kinda fudged and repeated by the MSM. My apologies, I should have given a warning. I know those of you who believe that MSM member are killer fact checkers are going into shock.
The accounting is as creative as the Madoff team. It seems some of the former detainees went right back to the war by writing about it and were thus counted as just about to put petn down their undies. Per Andy,
We know, from earlier Pentagon claims, that this “recidivism” has included — and may well still include — publishing houses, the offices of newspapers, TV studios, and film sets because the Pentagon admitted (in a press release that was subsequently deleted from the Pentagon’s website, but is mirrored here) that it included former prisoners, like the Tipton Three — three young men from the West Midlands — who had appeared in a movie, The Road to Guantánamo, which dramatized their experiences, and the five Uighurs sent to Albania in 2006, after tribunals at Guantánamo cleared them of being “enemy combatants.” In the latter case, this was apparently because one of them, Abu Bakker Qassim, wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times in which he urged U.S. lawmakers to defend habeas corpus.
In the years since, many more ex-prisoners have written books, newspaper articles, and op-eds, and have appeared on TV and in films. Perhaps Omar Deghayes, the British resident (released in 2007), who appeared in the Guantánamo documentary that I co-directed, Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo, has now joined this ever-expanding group of “recidivists” who have dared to use their words and their voices to “attack” the United States for what it did to them in its brutal, experimental prisons in Afghanistan, Guantánamo and elsewhere.
Of course, If the pen is mightier than the sword, we may every right to be fearful. Being able to argue has to be defined as aggression.
No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up. Lily Tomlin, I think.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Well, it is happening again. Not about WMD in Iraq but one of the other places we have troops. Granted, that's a lot of places. You remember that place we invaded after 911 and never left and is popping up in the news again. Yes, it's called Afghanistan.
Well, we scooped up a lot of lads and gave them a vacation in the sun drenched Caribbean where we treated them with kid gloves. Ah, well maybe we were a tad harsh with some. Still, if it is in a higher cause, what the heck.
Now John Brennan, the assistant to President Obama for homeland security and counterterrorism has written that, [T]he Intelligence Community assesses that 20 percent of detainees transferred from Guantánamo are confirmed or suspected of recidivist activity. I find that shocking. To tell you the truth, if I had been held for years against my will, I'd certainly be wanting to get back at the nation that jailed me.
The thing about the recidivist figures is that they are bunk. Over at the Future Of Freedom Commentaries, Andy Worthington exposes it in Repeating Pentagon Lies on Gitmo Recidivism. It seems that the figures were kinda fudged and repeated by the MSM. My apologies, I should have given a warning. I know those of you who believe that MSM member are killer fact checkers are going into shock.
The accounting is as creative as the Madoff team. It seems some of the former detainees went right back to the war by writing about it and were thus counted as just about to put petn down their undies. Per Andy,
We know, from earlier Pentagon claims, that this “recidivism” has included — and may well still include — publishing houses, the offices of newspapers, TV studios, and film sets because the Pentagon admitted (in a press release that was subsequently deleted from the Pentagon’s website, but is mirrored here) that it included former prisoners, like the Tipton Three — three young men from the West Midlands — who had appeared in a movie, The Road to Guantánamo, which dramatized their experiences, and the five Uighurs sent to Albania in 2006, after tribunals at Guantánamo cleared them of being “enemy combatants.” In the latter case, this was apparently because one of them, Abu Bakker Qassim, wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times in which he urged U.S. lawmakers to defend habeas corpus.
In the years since, many more ex-prisoners have written books, newspaper articles, and op-eds, and have appeared on TV and in films. Perhaps Omar Deghayes, the British resident (released in 2007), who appeared in the Guantánamo documentary that I co-directed, Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo, has now joined this ever-expanding group of “recidivists” who have dared to use their words and their voices to “attack” the United States for what it did to them in its brutal, experimental prisons in Afghanistan, Guantánamo and elsewhere.
Of course, If the pen is mightier than the sword, we may every right to be fearful. Being able to argue has to be defined as aggression.
No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up. Lily Tomlin, I think.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. Wasn't that the rationale?
From USA Today: Intel chief: al-Qaeda likely to attempt attack
From the article: WASHINGTON (AP) — al-Qaeda can be expected to attempt an attack on the United States in the next three to six months, senior U.S. intelligence officials told Congress.
The terrorist organization is deploying operatives to the United States to carry out new attacks from inside the country, including "clean" recruits with a negligible trail of terrorist contacts, CIA Director Leon Panetta said.
So I guess some of them are taking a break from fighting us over there so they can fight us over here.
Of course anyone who bought that line was capable of believing they hate us for our freedoms.
Now how many billions? trillions? has this brilliant strategy wasted. How many young men have been killed and maimed in the struggle?
Ah, but it has not been all a waste. Many chickenhawk journalistic careers have gotten a boost.
From the article: WASHINGTON (AP) — al-Qaeda can be expected to attempt an attack on the United States in the next three to six months, senior U.S. intelligence officials told Congress.
The terrorist organization is deploying operatives to the United States to carry out new attacks from inside the country, including "clean" recruits with a negligible trail of terrorist contacts, CIA Director Leon Panetta said.
So I guess some of them are taking a break from fighting us over there so they can fight us over here.
Of course anyone who bought that line was capable of believing they hate us for our freedoms.
Now how many billions? trillions? has this brilliant strategy wasted. How many young men have been killed and maimed in the struggle?
Ah, but it has not been all a waste. Many chickenhawk journalistic careers have gotten a boost.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Let's do Dresden again!
In my role as a normal, walking around human being (whatever that is?) I tend to agree with the Skeptical CPA. Heaven knows we need more auditors who are willing to use a jauniced eye.
When your man delves into foregn policy, he becomes a hide under the bed conservative where Iran is concerned. I then have to step into the phone booth and put on my Neutralist costume. He offends below,
I believe Ralph Peters shortly after 9/11 suggested the: US, Russia, India, Israel and China form an alliance to fight Jihadism. Imagine had this happened, the US and Russia could have presented Iran an ultimatum, replete with pictures of Dresden and Berlin: stop all nuclear activities or this is your fate, that of Germany in 1945. My guess, within a few weeks, Iran's military will have slaughtered its Mullahs and given US-Russian teams free reign to look at anything in Iran. Instead, the US kisses Saudi Arabia's arse.
Mr. Peters is a buffoon and thug. A buffoon because after the Soviet collapse, we made Russia promises that we broke and all of a sudden we say, hey let's be friends and they will buy it. A thug, because the proposal above is thuggish as was Dresden and Hiroshima.
The only part that makes sense is the part about where we kiss the Saudis. Then again, as a Neutralist, I do not want to kiss or kick any part of anyone's anatomy. Our save the world foreign policy is a big part of the reason we are going broke. Yet we continue to punch shadows. The Middle East, even Iran trying to get the big firecracker is no threat to us. Let me say it again, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Iranians do not have carrier fleets and couldn't sail them if they did. Even Iran doesn't have a real air force. It is the Middle East Powder Thimble.
Oh, and say we and the Russkies had given the ultimatum to Iran and they had said, go fry ice and we then fried them. We would have become what we are now, a rogue, failed state.
Yes, the Russians do want us to stay and chase our tail in Afghanistan. We dissipate our strength and keep their enemies occupied. Win Win for them. That is no reason for us to be there.
When your man delves into foregn policy, he becomes a hide under the bed conservative where Iran is concerned. I then have to step into the phone booth and put on my Neutralist costume. He offends below,
I believe Ralph Peters shortly after 9/11 suggested the: US, Russia, India, Israel and China form an alliance to fight Jihadism. Imagine had this happened, the US and Russia could have presented Iran an ultimatum, replete with pictures of Dresden and Berlin: stop all nuclear activities or this is your fate, that of Germany in 1945. My guess, within a few weeks, Iran's military will have slaughtered its Mullahs and given US-Russian teams free reign to look at anything in Iran. Instead, the US kisses Saudi Arabia's arse.
Mr. Peters is a buffoon and thug. A buffoon because after the Soviet collapse, we made Russia promises that we broke and all of a sudden we say, hey let's be friends and they will buy it. A thug, because the proposal above is thuggish as was Dresden and Hiroshima.
The only part that makes sense is the part about where we kiss the Saudis. Then again, as a Neutralist, I do not want to kiss or kick any part of anyone's anatomy. Our save the world foreign policy is a big part of the reason we are going broke. Yet we continue to punch shadows. The Middle East, even Iran trying to get the big firecracker is no threat to us. Let me say it again, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Iranians do not have carrier fleets and couldn't sail them if they did. Even Iran doesn't have a real air force. It is the Middle East Powder Thimble.
Oh, and say we and the Russkies had given the ultimatum to Iran and they had said, go fry ice and we then fried them. We would have become what we are now, a rogue, failed state.
Yes, the Russians do want us to stay and chase our tail in Afghanistan. We dissipate our strength and keep their enemies occupied. Win Win for them. That is no reason for us to be there.
Monday, January 18, 2010
The Neutralist Position on Haiti
So what is the Neutralist position on Haiti? Yes, the desperate call for guidance from our headquarters can be measured in almost less than single digits. No matter, we are happy to state our position. The Neutralist is against Neo-Colonialism in all its forms, but especially when it leads to American military assets being deployed to save another benighted people from themselves.
Want to throw a twenty into the special collection at your church? Be my guest. Give to make Yclef Jean (whoever that is) wealthier and yourself feel better? Go for it. Whatever charitable expenditure you make is your business and if you know what you are doing or get lucky in your choice of organization, it might do some good.
We have been intervening militarily in Haiti since 1850, according to one source. Now I have no right to say that has made Haiti the supposed basket case it is. I do aver that it has not in any event really helped.
I spoke with someone who has had extensive aid experience and he does not believe the current save Haiti thingie to be glorious.
One interesting news item was that all the buildings made by Euros and Euro Americans, or in the style thereof, collapsed. Now the building codes in our sister republic might be a bit fluid, but contrast that with the shanty towns. It appears the flimsy stuff held up nicely.
I suspect that left to themselves the Haitians would build something suitable. Okay, they might not set up universities, but does a nation need a lot of sinecure factories anyway? There is an overpopulation problem that is probably being "fed" by all the do good agencies that work in the country. The thing is, Haiti should be a Haitian problem, not a people who have to be the special project of the rest of the world.
And the Haitians are not the helpless wards of the world in all things. They beat up the imperial armies of France, England and Spain. I would guess in some of our adventures, we were happy to leave.
Want to throw a twenty into the special collection at your church? Be my guest. Give to make Yclef Jean (whoever that is) wealthier and yourself feel better? Go for it. Whatever charitable expenditure you make is your business and if you know what you are doing or get lucky in your choice of organization, it might do some good.
We have been intervening militarily in Haiti since 1850, according to one source. Now I have no right to say that has made Haiti the supposed basket case it is. I do aver that it has not in any event really helped.
I spoke with someone who has had extensive aid experience and he does not believe the current save Haiti thingie to be glorious.
One interesting news item was that all the buildings made by Euros and Euro Americans, or in the style thereof, collapsed. Now the building codes in our sister republic might be a bit fluid, but contrast that with the shanty towns. It appears the flimsy stuff held up nicely.
I suspect that left to themselves the Haitians would build something suitable. Okay, they might not set up universities, but does a nation need a lot of sinecure factories anyway? There is an overpopulation problem that is probably being "fed" by all the do good agencies that work in the country. The thing is, Haiti should be a Haitian problem, not a people who have to be the special project of the rest of the world.
And the Haitians are not the helpless wards of the world in all things. They beat up the imperial armies of France, England and Spain. I would guess in some of our adventures, we were happy to leave.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
The Boondoggle Continues
I started reading Mike "Mish" Shedlock because I accidentally heard a podcast where he explained why we have not had roaring inflation despite Zimbabwe Ben's best efforts. It was the most cogent explanation I'd heard. Heck, it was the only reasonable voice on the matter that I had come across.
This, however, is not a blog about economics other than we espouse a foreign policy that does not bankrupt the nation. FP is not necessarily the remit of Mish's blog, but there is no resentment from us. Step on our toes anytime, Mr. Shedlock.
Anyway, Mish has been trading emails with a soldier over in Afghanistan. The soldier, BP pinged Mish,
You really need to do something on the waste of this war. Foreign contractors are everywhere you look.
KBR must have 4 civilians for every military member. There are a few American contractors but most seem to be Foreign nationals. Philippine nationals are everywhere. I'm sure they get paid peanuts so the KBR shareholders get their return.
Mish did some research on the question and quotes a Wapo article ,
The surge of 30,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan could be accompanied by a surge of up to 56,000 contractors, vastly expanding the presence of personnel from the U.S. private sector in a war zone, according to a study by the Congressional Research Service.
CRS, which provides background information to members of Congress on a bipartisan basis, said it expects an additional 26,000 to 56,000 contractors to be sent to Afghanistan. That would bring the number of contractors in the country to anywhere from 130,000 to 160,000.
The CRS study says contractors made up 69 percent of the Pentagon's personnel in Afghanistan last December, a proportion that "apparently represented the highest recorded percentage of contractors used by the Defense Department in any conflict in the history of the United States."
He quotes James Howard Kunstler on the unwinnability of the war. I find some of Kunstler's stuff charming, especially his autobiographical vignettes, but he does not mention his y2k doomer stuff that did not pan out. Saying the war is unwinnable now is only evidence of sanity. Saying it in 2001 was wisdom.
Back to Mish. His words are dead on.
How many trillions have we wasted on "Star Wars" initiatives? Yet since the end of the cold war, the big threat never was nor ever will be, countries firing missiles at us. The big threat to the US so far has been improper security procedures on airplanes and schools.
Nut cases are everywhere. Proof enough can be found in the US when Timothy McVeigh blew up a building, and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were responsible for the Columbine High School massacre.
It's important to remember "terror" is a method. A war on terror makes no sense because one cannot win a war on a method.
Externally, the most important thing to note is the longer we meddle in the internal affairs of other countries the more enemies we make.
In spite of the fact that Iraq was never a strategic threat to the US, we wasted $694 billion there as noted in Cost of Iraq war will surpass Vietnam. Add in future medical liabilities and money hidden elsewhere and the cost of Iraq easily exceeds $1 trillion. We can thank idiot Bush and Congressional morons for that mess.
Now Obama is about to throw more money down the Afghanistan black hole. Like Iraq, Afghanistan is another Vietnam. It will not cost as many lives but it is just as stupid and economically will cost as much if we stay for a few more years.
Why Do They Hate Us?
War mongers like to tout "they hate us for our freedoms". Well, no they don't. If that was the reason, they would hate New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Germany, Iceland, and dozens of other countries.
They hate the US because ...
* We have troops in 150 countries
* We support corrupt regimes
* We needlessly meddle in the internal affairs of other countries
* We have a one-sided policy on Israel
* We are hypocrites on free trade and human rights
The more we keep troops all over the world, the more enemies we make. Eventually it will bankrupt us. The only sane solution is to declare the war won and leave, not just Afghanistan, but 149 other countries as well.
Mish will have to bear the burden of being awarded the not too much coveted Neutralist Article of the Month for January. It is a great post and we wish to recognize him now. Also, this spares us having to make the effort to think about other articles.
Congratulations, Mish.
This, however, is not a blog about economics other than we espouse a foreign policy that does not bankrupt the nation. FP is not necessarily the remit of Mish's blog, but there is no resentment from us. Step on our toes anytime, Mr. Shedlock.
Anyway, Mish has been trading emails with a soldier over in Afghanistan. The soldier, BP pinged Mish,
You really need to do something on the waste of this war. Foreign contractors are everywhere you look.
KBR must have 4 civilians for every military member. There are a few American contractors but most seem to be Foreign nationals. Philippine nationals are everywhere. I'm sure they get paid peanuts so the KBR shareholders get their return.
Mish did some research on the question and quotes a Wapo article ,
The surge of 30,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan could be accompanied by a surge of up to 56,000 contractors, vastly expanding the presence of personnel from the U.S. private sector in a war zone, according to a study by the Congressional Research Service.
CRS, which provides background information to members of Congress on a bipartisan basis, said it expects an additional 26,000 to 56,000 contractors to be sent to Afghanistan. That would bring the number of contractors in the country to anywhere from 130,000 to 160,000.
The CRS study says contractors made up 69 percent of the Pentagon's personnel in Afghanistan last December, a proportion that "apparently represented the highest recorded percentage of contractors used by the Defense Department in any conflict in the history of the United States."
He quotes James Howard Kunstler on the unwinnability of the war. I find some of Kunstler's stuff charming, especially his autobiographical vignettes, but he does not mention his y2k doomer stuff that did not pan out. Saying the war is unwinnable now is only evidence of sanity. Saying it in 2001 was wisdom.
Back to Mish. His words are dead on.
How many trillions have we wasted on "Star Wars" initiatives? Yet since the end of the cold war, the big threat never was nor ever will be, countries firing missiles at us. The big threat to the US so far has been improper security procedures on airplanes and schools.
Nut cases are everywhere. Proof enough can be found in the US when Timothy McVeigh blew up a building, and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were responsible for the Columbine High School massacre.
It's important to remember "terror" is a method. A war on terror makes no sense because one cannot win a war on a method.
Externally, the most important thing to note is the longer we meddle in the internal affairs of other countries the more enemies we make.
In spite of the fact that Iraq was never a strategic threat to the US, we wasted $694 billion there as noted in Cost of Iraq war will surpass Vietnam. Add in future medical liabilities and money hidden elsewhere and the cost of Iraq easily exceeds $1 trillion. We can thank idiot Bush and Congressional morons for that mess.
Now Obama is about to throw more money down the Afghanistan black hole. Like Iraq, Afghanistan is another Vietnam. It will not cost as many lives but it is just as stupid and economically will cost as much if we stay for a few more years.
Why Do They Hate Us?
War mongers like to tout "they hate us for our freedoms". Well, no they don't. If that was the reason, they would hate New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Germany, Iceland, and dozens of other countries.
They hate the US because ...
* We have troops in 150 countries
* We support corrupt regimes
* We needlessly meddle in the internal affairs of other countries
* We have a one-sided policy on Israel
* We are hypocrites on free trade and human rights
The more we keep troops all over the world, the more enemies we make. Eventually it will bankrupt us. The only sane solution is to declare the war won and leave, not just Afghanistan, but 149 other countries as well.
Mish will have to bear the burden of being awarded the not too much coveted Neutralist Article of the Month for January. It is a great post and we wish to recognize him now. Also, this spares us having to make the effort to think about other articles.
Congratulations, Mish.
Friday, January 01, 2010
The descent of Ben Stein
I suppose everyone has seen the Stein-Lee-Paul video from Larry King where Ben Stein's knee jerks into an inference of anti-semitism when Ron Paul says our foreign policy is a cause of blowback.
I have been reading Ben Stein for, I would guess, at least thirty years. He is a wit and not without wisdom. What he has done here is stain his soul. A man of talent and ability becoming old and sad in the misguided service of something he loves.
For a Jew to defend and support Israel is natural. That is something only an true anti-semite either does not understand or opposes because he does precisely realize it is valid. Israel, however, is not the United States and the United States is not Israel. We may at times have mutual interests and at times we may not. The Neutralist avers that trying to run the world is in the interest of neither. Calling someone an anti-semite over that is sad.
The Neutralist policy on Israel, as much as there is one, is here.
Sheila Jackson Lee appeared to only be there to say Obama is God. There is no comment necessary from the Neutralist.
I have been reading Ben Stein for, I would guess, at least thirty years. He is a wit and not without wisdom. What he has done here is stain his soul. A man of talent and ability becoming old and sad in the misguided service of something he loves.
For a Jew to defend and support Israel is natural. That is something only an true anti-semite either does not understand or opposes because he does precisely realize it is valid. Israel, however, is not the United States and the United States is not Israel. We may at times have mutual interests and at times we may not. The Neutralist avers that trying to run the world is in the interest of neither. Calling someone an anti-semite over that is sad.
The Neutralist policy on Israel, as much as there is one, is here.
Sheila Jackson Lee appeared to only be there to say Obama is God. There is no comment necessary from the Neutralist.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Establishment magazine says the war is lost. Tell us something we didn't already know.
Foreign Policy, a magazine of the American establishment has said it all,
There isn't the slightest possibility that the course laid out by Barack Obama in his Dec. 1 speech will halt or even slow the downward spiral toward defeat in Afghanistan. None.
These words were penned by BY THOMAS H. JOHNSON, M. CHRIS MASON on DECEMBER 10, 2009. Who are the authors? Thomas H. Johnson is research professor of the Department in National Security Affairs and director of the Program for Culture and Conflict Studies at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif.
M. Chris Mason, a retired Foreign Service officer who served in 2005 as political officer for the provincial reconstruction team in Paktika, is senior fellow at the Program for Culture and Conflict Studies and at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies in Washington.
Thus the men are true members of the team. I suspect they have both believed this for a while before the speech. It is not as if there were the slightest chance the Pres was going to come up with sufficient men and materiel to turn Afghanistan into any kind of stable entity capable of standing on its own.
Your humble neutralist thought the war doomed before it started. I take no joy in my country's defeat. I only note, in truth, we are defeating ourselves.
Of course, politically, Obama could not say what he knows is true even if he was so inclined. The question becomes why, really did it take so long to come up with a policy that he probably knew was ridiculous. Granted this surge may have been the least goofy alternative that was politically acceptable. His inability to tell the truth and end it, means the war is now well and truly his. In truth, did anyone not think this was going to happen?
I first read of the FP article at Randall Parker's Parapundit blog. In passing I note the comment of one of his readers.
I remember watching 3 segments on consecutive nights on Britain's Newsnight program earlier this year regarding the involvement of British forces and being shocked at the comments of various senior commanders.
i) in one segment a senior commander was interviewed who had been in command in Kabul for several months admitted on camera that he had only just recently become aware of the British Afghan campaigns in the 19th century and was reading up on them.
When I was an enlisted man during the Viet Nam war, only one of my officers knew as much about history as I did. One thought the Brits would know more. I would guess Johnson and Mason have a grasp of the history of Afghanistan. I doubt Obama and his coterie do. The previous team didn't either.
It would be nice if someone could just say let's go home and spare the lives of us and them.
There isn't the slightest possibility that the course laid out by Barack Obama in his Dec. 1 speech will halt or even slow the downward spiral toward defeat in Afghanistan. None.
These words were penned by BY THOMAS H. JOHNSON, M. CHRIS MASON on DECEMBER 10, 2009. Who are the authors? Thomas H. Johnson is research professor of the Department in National Security Affairs and director of the Program for Culture and Conflict Studies at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif.
M. Chris Mason, a retired Foreign Service officer who served in 2005 as political officer for the provincial reconstruction team in Paktika, is senior fellow at the Program for Culture and Conflict Studies and at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies in Washington.
Thus the men are true members of the team. I suspect they have both believed this for a while before the speech. It is not as if there were the slightest chance the Pres was going to come up with sufficient men and materiel to turn Afghanistan into any kind of stable entity capable of standing on its own.
Your humble neutralist thought the war doomed before it started. I take no joy in my country's defeat. I only note, in truth, we are defeating ourselves.
Of course, politically, Obama could not say what he knows is true even if he was so inclined. The question becomes why, really did it take so long to come up with a policy that he probably knew was ridiculous. Granted this surge may have been the least goofy alternative that was politically acceptable. His inability to tell the truth and end it, means the war is now well and truly his. In truth, did anyone not think this was going to happen?
I first read of the FP article at Randall Parker's Parapundit blog. In passing I note the comment of one of his readers.
I remember watching 3 segments on consecutive nights on Britain's Newsnight program earlier this year regarding the involvement of British forces and being shocked at the comments of various senior commanders.
i) in one segment a senior commander was interviewed who had been in command in Kabul for several months admitted on camera that he had only just recently become aware of the British Afghan campaigns in the 19th century and was reading up on them.
When I was an enlisted man during the Viet Nam war, only one of my officers knew as much about history as I did. One thought the Brits would know more. I would guess Johnson and Mason have a grasp of the history of Afghanistan. I doubt Obama and his coterie do. The previous team didn't either.
It would be nice if someone could just say let's go home and spare the lives of us and them.
Saturday, December 05, 2009
Neutralism has its work cut out for it.
Mr. Daniel Larison has a December 3rd post at The Amercian Conservative blog about how our countrymen will claim to be for minding our own biz while still favoring intervention.
He starts, The new Pew survey (via RCP) that purports to show a record-high level of “isolationist sentiment” is fairly misleading. No doubt, there was a higher percentage that answered that the U.S. should “mind its own business and let other countries get along the best they can on their own,” but the alternative was to answer that the U.S. “is the most powerful nation in the world, we should go our own way in international matters, not worrying about whether other countries agree with us or not.” Given that choice between something that sounds reasonable and something that sounds idiotic, a great many non-”isolationists” would prefer the former response. Essentially, the survey offered two choices. On the one hand, the respondent can choose arrogant hegemonism and disregard the interests of all other nations, or he can choose something less obviously obnoxious. One depressing thing about the survey results is that hegemonism still gets 44%. The other depressing thing is that the 49% don’t really mean what they claim to believe.
Disheartening as the above paragraph is, the one that really shocks is,
Among the public, 63% approve of the use of U.S. military force against Iran if it were certain that Iran had produced a nuclear weapon; just 33% of CFR members agree.
The freaking CFR members are less warmongering than my lumpen fellow countrymen!
The title of the post is "The Bogey Of Isolationism" Mr. Larison nicely puts the whole Pew thing in perspective.
The commenters know something is wrong because if you are not for all war all the time overseas, you become an "isolationist." Not exactly a Nazi, but as goofy as a Moonie. They have come up with alternative terms such as Realist, Eunomic, George Washingtonism and others. I am saddened they have not realized the obvious. Neutralism is the term.
Of course, I have not been doing any heavy lifting of late to make Neutalist and Neutralism household words, but that does not take away from the fact that the term that they are searching for is within their grasp.
He starts, The new Pew survey (via RCP) that purports to show a record-high level of “isolationist sentiment” is fairly misleading. No doubt, there was a higher percentage that answered that the U.S. should “mind its own business and let other countries get along the best they can on their own,” but the alternative was to answer that the U.S. “is the most powerful nation in the world, we should go our own way in international matters, not worrying about whether other countries agree with us or not.” Given that choice between something that sounds reasonable and something that sounds idiotic, a great many non-”isolationists” would prefer the former response. Essentially, the survey offered two choices. On the one hand, the respondent can choose arrogant hegemonism and disregard the interests of all other nations, or he can choose something less obviously obnoxious. One depressing thing about the survey results is that hegemonism still gets 44%. The other depressing thing is that the 49% don’t really mean what they claim to believe.
Disheartening as the above paragraph is, the one that really shocks is,
Among the public, 63% approve of the use of U.S. military force against Iran if it were certain that Iran had produced a nuclear weapon; just 33% of CFR members agree.
The freaking CFR members are less warmongering than my lumpen fellow countrymen!
The title of the post is "The Bogey Of Isolationism" Mr. Larison nicely puts the whole Pew thing in perspective.
The commenters know something is wrong because if you are not for all war all the time overseas, you become an "isolationist." Not exactly a Nazi, but as goofy as a Moonie. They have come up with alternative terms such as Realist, Eunomic, George Washingtonism and others. I am saddened they have not realized the obvious. Neutralism is the term.
Of course, I have not been doing any heavy lifting of late to make Neutalist and Neutralism household words, but that does not take away from the fact that the term that they are searching for is within their grasp.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
It bears repeating
Over at Defense and the National Interest, a Senor Tomas made this comment,
Saddam Hussein was a counter-balance against the Iranians and a counter-balance against Islamic fundamentalists - including Al Qaeda. For this reason alone overthrowing Saddam Hussein weakened United States national security - not strenghthened it. I have said this before and I say it again - overthrowing Saddam Hussein is one of the stupidest things the United States of America has done in its 200-plus-year history.
I beg anyone to try and make the case that ST is wrong. ST may not be a neutralist, but he made the case for it. A country that treats its foreign policy so stupidly doesn't deserve to have one.
Saddam Hussein was a counter-balance against the Iranians and a counter-balance against Islamic fundamentalists - including Al Qaeda. For this reason alone overthrowing Saddam Hussein weakened United States national security - not strenghthened it. I have said this before and I say it again - overthrowing Saddam Hussein is one of the stupidest things the United States of America has done in its 200-plus-year history.
I beg anyone to try and make the case that ST is wrong. ST may not be a neutralist, but he made the case for it. A country that treats its foreign policy so stupidly doesn't deserve to have one.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Quaker Card as sliming
Below we steal from Mr. Vance. The Quakers where I live seem to be a group of touchy feely granolas with a New Age tinge. I am sure this is unfair as I've never made a study of them. Still, I think Jefferson's point is well taken.
From LRC Blog
The Quaker Card
Posted by Laurence Vance at May 12, 2009 08:54 PM
The "Quaker card" was recently played against me again. Although I am a Baptist, I would gladly accept a hand full of Quaker cards--it beats a hand of aggression, torture, intervention, death, and destruction.
Here is Thomas Jefferson’s "Quaker" foreign policy:
Peace has been our principle, peace is our interest, and peace has saved to the world this only plant of free and rational government now existing in it. However, therefore, we may have been reproached for pursuing our Quaker system, time will affix the stamp of wisdom on it, and the happiness and prosperity of our citizens will attest its merit. And this, I believe, is the only legitimate object of government, and the first duty of governors, and not the slaughter of men and devastation of the countries placed under their care, in pursuit of a fantastic honor, unallied to virtue or happiness; or in gratification of the angry passions, or the pride of administrators, excited by personal incidents, in which their citizens have no concern.
From LRC Blog
The Quaker Card
Posted by Laurence Vance at May 12, 2009 08:54 PM
The "Quaker card" was recently played against me again. Although I am a Baptist, I would gladly accept a hand full of Quaker cards--it beats a hand of aggression, torture, intervention, death, and destruction.
Here is Thomas Jefferson’s "Quaker" foreign policy:
Peace has been our principle, peace is our interest, and peace has saved to the world this only plant of free and rational government now existing in it. However, therefore, we may have been reproached for pursuing our Quaker system, time will affix the stamp of wisdom on it, and the happiness and prosperity of our citizens will attest its merit. And this, I believe, is the only legitimate object of government, and the first duty of governors, and not the slaughter of men and devastation of the countries placed under their care, in pursuit of a fantastic honor, unallied to virtue or happiness; or in gratification of the angry passions, or the pride of administrators, excited by personal incidents, in which their citizens have no concern.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Answer the Question
All you drunk in a bar or hiding under the bed so called conservatives* and other assorted chickenhawks should answer the questions posed by Ronnie in this speech.
Okay, chickenhawks, you sent the army to kill untold thousands of foreigners as well as 5,000 of your countrymen (and women) Have you had enough revenge for the 3,000 dead in911? Did you bring them back to life?
*The only true Conservative Foreign Policy is defense of hearth and home. It is not pursuit of empire.
Hat tip.
Okay, chickenhawks, you sent the army to kill untold thousands of foreigners as well as 5,000 of your countrymen (and women) Have you had enough revenge for the 3,000 dead in911? Did you bring them back to life?
*The only true Conservative Foreign Policy is defense of hearth and home. It is not pursuit of empire.
Hat tip.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Drunk in A Bar Conservatism
The Skeptical CPA is an interesting blog and I agree with him a lot and find him interesting. About foreign policy he has, like most of my countrymen and women, no commonsense.
Here is his February 6, 2009 post wherin he reposts the work of a so called intellectual conservative and then caps it with the words of Michael Savage speaking ex cathedra.
"What happens when the alternatives fail? What happens when all the negotiations, sanctions, and compromises fail to dissuade an aggressor? What happens when a nation is forced into war as a last resort? When is 'victory' over an aggressor truly achieved? The answer can be found in an analysis of American strategic war doctrine in the late 19th and 20th ccenturies. ... Historically, the term 'total war'--examples of which include the American Civil War and World War II--was based on the assumption that there were only two options in existential conflicts--total victory or total defeat. .. For the defeated, it meant the end of its ability to wage war, the futility of continuing the conflict and, as in the case of the Nazis, the end of their dream of a thousand-year Reich. Nazi Germany was not merely defeated, it was psychologically vanquished. ... FDR, Churchill and Generals Eisenhower and Patton--like Lincoln, Grant, Sherman and Sheridan before them--understood that if wars had to be fought, if blood and treasure had to be expended, if sacrifice had to be demanded of the nation (including setting the economy on a war footing, re-instituting the draft, selling war bonds, instituting food rationing, and bringing the nation with you by seeking a Congressional declaration of war), then the American people had the right to demand that wars be prosecuted to insure absolute victory so the issues over which they were being fought and for which they were being asked to sacrifice their children would never have to be 'revisted.' ... At the end of World War II, no Nazi official could stand in the ruins of Berlin in April, 1945 and urge his fellow Germans to 'stay the course' until a Nazi victory was assured. Nor, for that matter, could General Hideki Tojo of the Imperial Japanese Army convince his poeople that the destruction wrought by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 were just a 'temporary setback.' It was clear to the German and Japanese peoples that the European and Japanese wars were over. ... All this changed in the post-World War II era. With the advent of nuclear weapons, warefare theorists came to believe that a total war between the two superpowers could lead to mutual annihilation. It was this deterrent concept, applied across the board, the led post-war American military strategists to modify the historical rules of war by resurrecting the seemingly more logical and humane concept that came to be known as 'limited war.' That concept assumed that our enemies would pursue their war objectives in much the same manner and according to the same rules of engagement that we pursue ours. ... But strategists of 'limited war' failed to consider the consequences of what would happen when we confront religiously-inspired enemies like jihadists who refuse to play by our 'limited war' rules, who do not accept international treaties governing the rules of engagement or the treatment of prisoners, who use civilians as human shields, children as human grenades, see 'martyrdom' as a tactical weapon, come from an entirely different culture and value system, and seek nothing less than the destruction of our way of life. ... During the Iranian embassy crisis, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni disclosed that he had no fear of America. 'Our youth should be confident that America cannot do a damn thing.' ... Carter contented himself with imposing ineffectual ... sanctions. ... His dithering would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans in the coming decades. ... This same defensive war doctrine reigns today in Iraq. Despite the rhetoric, U.S. military strategy is not geared to vanquishing its enemies. ... During World War II, it would have been unthinkable to stop at the German border after the liberation of Fance and begin reconstruction, leaving Adolf Hitler and the Nazis in power. ... The U.S. has always assumed that it is the only nation with grand visions like peace, democratization, free enterprsie and globalization. But Iran and its Palestinian and Lebanese Islamic surrogates have their own 'grand vision' and the grandest of them all tells that that both America and Israel will never be anything but enemies of their regime, culture and religions, and that victory over both is assured because it has been ordained by Allah. ... Americans want victory and like it or not, the road to that victory leads through Tehran. Destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities, bringing down the Islamic regime and vanquishing all aspects of the Islamic Revolution are absolutely critical if the greater war against Islamic jihadism is to be won", Mark Silverberg, 14 January 2009 at: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/01/14/the-strategy-of-defeat-and-lessons-for-israel-in-gaza/.
This may make some cry, but war against Islamic Jihadism requires much more killing of jihadists and their populations than the West has done to date. Absent more killing, the West will not survive. That's the bottom line. Our entire war on terror rests on false premises. Spengler had a 12 June 2003 post, "More Killing Please" on this, link: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF12Ak01.html. How right he is. As Michael Savage, radio talk show host has said many times, "Only a more Savage nation will survive".
Alright, lets think about this. SCPA, Siverberg and Savage want to wage war. Big war, a lot of war. Well, the enemy is out thinking them. Recently, they out thought the Israelis in Operation Cast Lead. They throw some piddling rockets, the Israelis huff and puff and finally send some reservists in Merkavas. The Palis go to ground, the Israelis bust up some stuff and kill a few people and leave looking stupid. Yup, because they were stupid. The Sabras of the war of independence are gone. It was just reservists riding through. The Israelis could have killed them all if they wanted to but unless Savage is made CinC, that ain't happening. Short much better humint that can target every militant there is not much Israel can do except elect tough talkers. Even though they have a lot of stupid socialism, Israel is infinitely more advanced than the Palis. Guess who has more to lose?
Silverberg:
Americans want victory and like it or not, the road to that victory leads through Tehran. Destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities, bringing down the Islamic regime and vanquishing all aspects of the Islamic Revolution are absolutely critical if the greater war against Islamic jihadism is to be won"
SCPA agrees with that. Intellectually, If he really believes that, he and Savage have a duty to be part of that war. Go get 'em. Our overseas adventure is stupid and the biggest part of why we are financially going down the tubes. I defy SCPA to tell me how the Islamists can destroy us if we only control immigration. They don't have carrier fleets and even if they got them, they couldn't sail them.
So good luck SCPA and Mike. Hope you learn to low crawl, because if you're part of the invasion force, you're going to need it. The IDF probably needs to do more of that too.
Oh, and the denouement of Vietnam that Mr. Silverberg regrets our loser policy over? We got to leave the place and they never bothered us again. The only successful exit strategy we ever executed.
Here is his February 6, 2009 post wherin he reposts the work of a so called intellectual conservative and then caps it with the words of Michael Savage speaking ex cathedra.
"What happens when the alternatives fail? What happens when all the negotiations, sanctions, and compromises fail to dissuade an aggressor? What happens when a nation is forced into war as a last resort? When is 'victory' over an aggressor truly achieved? The answer can be found in an analysis of American strategic war doctrine in the late 19th and 20th ccenturies. ... Historically, the term 'total war'--examples of which include the American Civil War and World War II--was based on the assumption that there were only two options in existential conflicts--total victory or total defeat. .. For the defeated, it meant the end of its ability to wage war, the futility of continuing the conflict and, as in the case of the Nazis, the end of their dream of a thousand-year Reich. Nazi Germany was not merely defeated, it was psychologically vanquished. ... FDR, Churchill and Generals Eisenhower and Patton--like Lincoln, Grant, Sherman and Sheridan before them--understood that if wars had to be fought, if blood and treasure had to be expended, if sacrifice had to be demanded of the nation (including setting the economy on a war footing, re-instituting the draft, selling war bonds, instituting food rationing, and bringing the nation with you by seeking a Congressional declaration of war), then the American people had the right to demand that wars be prosecuted to insure absolute victory so the issues over which they were being fought and for which they were being asked to sacrifice their children would never have to be 'revisted.' ... At the end of World War II, no Nazi official could stand in the ruins of Berlin in April, 1945 and urge his fellow Germans to 'stay the course' until a Nazi victory was assured. Nor, for that matter, could General Hideki Tojo of the Imperial Japanese Army convince his poeople that the destruction wrought by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 were just a 'temporary setback.' It was clear to the German and Japanese peoples that the European and Japanese wars were over. ... All this changed in the post-World War II era. With the advent of nuclear weapons, warefare theorists came to believe that a total war between the two superpowers could lead to mutual annihilation. It was this deterrent concept, applied across the board, the led post-war American military strategists to modify the historical rules of war by resurrecting the seemingly more logical and humane concept that came to be known as 'limited war.' That concept assumed that our enemies would pursue their war objectives in much the same manner and according to the same rules of engagement that we pursue ours. ... But strategists of 'limited war' failed to consider the consequences of what would happen when we confront religiously-inspired enemies like jihadists who refuse to play by our 'limited war' rules, who do not accept international treaties governing the rules of engagement or the treatment of prisoners, who use civilians as human shields, children as human grenades, see 'martyrdom' as a tactical weapon, come from an entirely different culture and value system, and seek nothing less than the destruction of our way of life. ... During the Iranian embassy crisis, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni disclosed that he had no fear of America. 'Our youth should be confident that America cannot do a damn thing.' ... Carter contented himself with imposing ineffectual ... sanctions. ... His dithering would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans in the coming decades. ... This same defensive war doctrine reigns today in Iraq. Despite the rhetoric, U.S. military strategy is not geared to vanquishing its enemies. ... During World War II, it would have been unthinkable to stop at the German border after the liberation of Fance and begin reconstruction, leaving Adolf Hitler and the Nazis in power. ... The U.S. has always assumed that it is the only nation with grand visions like peace, democratization, free enterprsie and globalization. But Iran and its Palestinian and Lebanese Islamic surrogates have their own 'grand vision' and the grandest of them all tells that that both America and Israel will never be anything but enemies of their regime, culture and religions, and that victory over both is assured because it has been ordained by Allah. ... Americans want victory and like it or not, the road to that victory leads through Tehran. Destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities, bringing down the Islamic regime and vanquishing all aspects of the Islamic Revolution are absolutely critical if the greater war against Islamic jihadism is to be won", Mark Silverberg, 14 January 2009 at: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/01/14/the-strategy-of-defeat-and-lessons-for-israel-in-gaza/.
This may make some cry, but war against Islamic Jihadism requires much more killing of jihadists and their populations than the West has done to date. Absent more killing, the West will not survive. That's the bottom line. Our entire war on terror rests on false premises. Spengler had a 12 June 2003 post, "More Killing Please" on this, link: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF12Ak01.html. How right he is. As Michael Savage, radio talk show host has said many times, "Only a more Savage nation will survive".
Alright, lets think about this. SCPA, Siverberg and Savage want to wage war. Big war, a lot of war. Well, the enemy is out thinking them. Recently, they out thought the Israelis in Operation Cast Lead. They throw some piddling rockets, the Israelis huff and puff and finally send some reservists in Merkavas. The Palis go to ground, the Israelis bust up some stuff and kill a few people and leave looking stupid. Yup, because they were stupid. The Sabras of the war of independence are gone. It was just reservists riding through. The Israelis could have killed them all if they wanted to but unless Savage is made CinC, that ain't happening. Short much better humint that can target every militant there is not much Israel can do except elect tough talkers. Even though they have a lot of stupid socialism, Israel is infinitely more advanced than the Palis. Guess who has more to lose?
Silverberg:
Americans want victory and like it or not, the road to that victory leads through Tehran. Destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities, bringing down the Islamic regime and vanquishing all aspects of the Islamic Revolution are absolutely critical if the greater war against Islamic jihadism is to be won"
SCPA agrees with that. Intellectually, If he really believes that, he and Savage have a duty to be part of that war. Go get 'em. Our overseas adventure is stupid and the biggest part of why we are financially going down the tubes. I defy SCPA to tell me how the Islamists can destroy us if we only control immigration. They don't have carrier fleets and even if they got them, they couldn't sail them.
So good luck SCPA and Mike. Hope you learn to low crawl, because if you're part of the invasion force, you're going to need it. The IDF probably needs to do more of that too.
Oh, and the denouement of Vietnam that Mr. Silverberg regrets our loser policy over? We got to leave the place and they never bothered us again. The only successful exit strategy we ever executed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
