Philip Giraldi gets it, Does any Republican?

Philip Giraldi, columnist at antiwar.com has, in less than a paragraph, analyzed the recent elections better than any talking head,

Most voters seemed to understand that the outcome of America’s midterm election was the result of a devastated economy and the President Barack Obama’s failure to create jobs or even to understand the difficulties that are confronting many American families.  But it’s nevertheless strange how America’s elites never seem to get it, probably because they are completely immune to the consequences of their own actions through their possession of money and power.  The latest failure to compute comes from the triumphant Republican Party, which appears to believe that the electoral results were an endorsement of the foreign and security policies of George W. Bush, which will mean blanket approval of a prolonged stay in Afghanistan coupled with new adventures in Iran, Yemen, and Somalia.

In the second paragraph he is equally intelligent.

The euphoria of the Republican triumph is bringing to the surface the usual flotsam and jetsam driven by various agendas linked to foreign countries, none of which in any way benefit the American people. Too bad there was not a national referendum item on the midterm ballot with only one question: "Shall the federal government dismantle its overseas bases, bring its soldiers home, and leave the rest of the world in peace?" Fortunately there are plenty of Republicans and also Democrats around who will make sure that such a question is never asked and who are intent on expanding America’s worldwide footprint.

Maybe, though, he is wrong and the GOP leadership gets it and the tea partiers want forever war. Obviously, the Neutralist wants Phil to be right.

The rest of the article is a discussion of the antics of some of the new warriors in Congress, but worth reading for the humor, though I can't be sure your man intended it so.

No matter, these words alone, "Shall the federal government dismantle its overseas bases, bring its soldiers home, and leave the rest of the world in peace?" are gold. For them, we deem Mr. Giraldi a Neutralist and name him a Fellow of the Neutralist Institue. Sorry Phil, there is little honor and no compensation.

We have st up a link to his archives over to the right.

The Assange assassination continues on the Emily Rooney Show

They can't outright shoot Julian Assange. It's a little too late for that. He is too well known now. That does not mean they won't try to make him a pariah. Last Friday, October 29th, they had a go at it on a Boston radio show.

Emily Rooney, daughter of Andy has a show on WGBH, a public radio outlet in the Boston area. On her Friday show, she had four men, most of whom were reporters, discussing the news. I only get to listen when I am in the car and going east toward Boston. I do that as little as possible. Anyway, NPR seems to be on the war team and Emily, trying to appear ever fair, had at Julian. The boys, however did not get the memo. I urge you to listen to the audio here,starting at 40:45. I have transcribed La Emily as best I could below.

Emily: it is disturbing to me how this got out in the first place cause it could have been a whole lot more damaging to all of us I mean in terms of national security. As it turns out it was just plain riveting I mean to know really that we're involved in I guess it's not a total surprise but the kind of situations torture, you know, killing people by mistake all kind of things that that those documents show

Others opined that they wished we had wikileaks in previous conflicts.

Other panelists:Also, it make those people in government who think they can do things behind closed doors much more cautious and would hold them accountale.

Then she went into her thumbs up thumbs down thing.

Emily: Alright, this is more nuanced thumbs up or thumbs down. Julian Assange himself now he's the founder of wikileaks I mean, he's an ideologue he's a polemic he's doing this for political reasons that was the journalist side of it. what's your take on it.

Someone said something about the attempt to pin the rape charge on assange and Emily let out a guffaw.

Emily: And the New York Times had a very critical piece of him, John burns did, suggesting he isn't stable and then that backfired on the Times as well

The others agreed that getting the info out trumped everything.

Emily: I'm troubled by him I'm going to give him a thumbs down.

Someone asked why and she said "He's totally biased."

Then one of the boys said "He's a horse's ass" and herself shouted, "He is, there you go. I liken him to that heavens gate guy Applewhite, he looks like him the guy you know the comet chaser."

Then one of the heavy hitter journalists said, "A lot of these bloggers are whacks too but if they get the information right, I think the public good is served." Thanks, guy. I am glad there are no whack jobs in serious journalism. Heck, the way the biz is going, you might be blogging soon, but I digress.

So the ever so fair Emily on rational public radio (as opposed to crazy right wing talk) unloads one big ad hominem against Assange. Now whatever you want to say about the man, his actions bespeak a bravery beyond what I, or maybe Emily, would attempt. Her act was disgraceful. Of course, ladies and gentlemen, it is on your dime, at least in part, thanks to the largesse of our government. Say what you want about the ravings of Rush and Glenn, at least you aren't charged.

Oh, and let me be ever so gentle here, Em (may I call you Em?) A person is a polemicist,. His speeches or writings may be polemics. Unless you were implying that his total being is one big polemic, which truly highlights you viciousness. Ironic that you would accuse him of being biased at the ideology free zone that is WGBH (not).

As to your statement, it could have been a whole lot more damaging to all of us I mean in terms of national security., Em, there is an ever so slight possibility that some random terrorist will burst into GBH's studios and shoot you. Still, don't worry your head over it. You have a better chance of dying from an infected paper cut.

Gene Healy says it all: Not even our leaders know why we are in Afghanistan

Country Joe and the Fish may have been a one hit wonder, but their song about Viet Nam resonates today,

and its 1,2,3 what are we fightin for?
don't ask me i don't give a dam

plus ça change, ya know. According to Gene Healy, nobody knows why. Going out on a limb here, but after the half decade mark, any war our country is in, the reasons will get murky and the original justifications will no longer be relevant (as if they were to begin with). Just ask Osama down in Gitmo getting ready for his trial.

It appears Mr. Healy has read the Woodward book so I don't have to. Thank you, Gene. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Anyway, here is a lovely quote,

Last October, Woodward reports, National Security Adviser James Jones called an emergency meeting with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "The president was not happy": After countless meetings and dueling memoranda, "they had not found a way to articulate why the United States was in Afghanistan. What were America's interests?"

Yeah, all we gotta do is find what we believe and then tell the lumpenistas. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Did it occur to any one of the assembled sinecure holders that if you can't explain the reason, there may be no reason?

Nahhhhhh.

Taliban attack the supply lines-World surprised by the obvious tactic

The Taliban has no air force, no predator drones, but that does not mean they are stupid. One does have to ask why they have taken so long to gear up their strategy of attacking supply lines? No matter, it's here.

I know my countrymen are not a nation of geographers, but a simply looking at a map of Afghanistan should be a wake up call. First thing you notice, no seacoast. It is landlocked and borders many countries, none of which are our close allies, and most of whom our relations with are problematic.

So the Taliban in one of its incarnations are attacking the tanker trucks that supply our forces over the road from Pakistan. The question becomes, can they do it enough to make our effort unsustainable?

So it's happening now. Actually, it's happened before, and it is not just the Taliban that can apply pressure.

Hey maybe we can cobble together another supply line and keep the game going until victory, or whatever. Bet on whatever.

Well, what do you expect. Of course you'd want a president to be a führer if your name was Donald the German

Donnie Deutsch and Pat Buchannan the constitution out the window to protect our soldiers over there. Arrest the Koran burner to protect the troops.

May I point out the supreme irony. A military is supposedly* deployed to protect us. We are not supposed to protect the troops. Anyway, you can watch Mr. Deutsch having the vapors here.

Hat tip to the Daily Burkeman. The link on Burkeman is "this speaks for itself. If a foreign policy gets to the point where we have to arrest our own people, no matter how goofy, because our armed troops, who are pretending to be building a free country overseas might be shot at, then res ipsa loquitur. I agree with Chris Dowd. Donnie and Pat are scarier than Terry.



*our military is not deployed overseas to protect us.

Don't think modern imperialism's a loser. Now we've gotta bailout their lousy banks too!

Per the Washington Post, The Kabul Bank is pulling a Citibank and crying for succor.

Now this is the Neutralist and we want all the troops home. Still, if we are going to do Imperialism, let's get something out of it. We don't bail them out, they bail us out. None of this pottery barn stuff.

This decree should go forth: On December 25th, everyone shall go to the city of their ancestors to be counted for taxes. Pay up by April 15th. Or we withdraw. That is our final offer.

Okay, Augustus didn't threaten to withdraw, but America needs love.

Interesting video from the other side-The Taliban speaks!

Interesting video from the comments section on Pat Lang's Sic Semper Tyrannis site. A Norwegian was able to film them as they fought us due to their hatred of our freedom. Ah, wait a minute, at 3:14 your man talks about fighting for freedom. Who does he think he is, George Bush.




Well, I think these lads want Afghanistan more than we do. I know they want it more than I do. Heck, they probably want it more than Bennett and Kristol. And...what would you do if someone invaded your country. What those guys are doing I hope.

The man who posted the video goes by the cute name, Charlie Wilson. His actual comment was, "I don't think these guys can be beat. I think we need to redo Panama or Grenada." If we really want to feel good about ourselves, we can let the Japanese build another fleet and do Midway again.

Reason throws in the towel completely, goes chickenhawk.

In an article Julian Assange, WikiJournalist
Is the Wikileaks "editor-in-chief" a journalist or an activist? Or both? cool guy libertarian and a Reason Senior Editor, Michael C. Moynihan, went after Julian Assange. You knew it would be a typical hit piece when you read the Assange description,"He looked like Edgar Winter as imagined by Jim Henson; an awkward, lanky Australian with translucent skin and wisps of white hair falling over his face." The rest was the same work. Mr. Moynihan is pretty vicious with his remarks.

It is in the comments that it really gets interesting. The baying for blood is long and loud except for some exceptions. Why, why, if we had this enthusiasm for the war instead of the keyboard, we would have won by now. Of course, online is where their fight is.

Oh, all you folks baying for Assange's blood. You will never see him tried. What he might be able to bring up in a fair trial fills the powers that be with terror.

Hat tip Justin Raimondo.

The Daily Caller is not just Johnny One Note!

You know, I was wondering if the Daily Caller was going to be a one trick pony. Would Journolist be it? Hey it was a big coup. Today I did not see much of that there, but a horribly reasonable take on The Afghan war by worst dress guy in the line up.

The gist, we ain't gonna win it, but it's worth hitting the link,

Engstrom, don't put on a tie for us.

A lot of blood for a lot of hands

the counterattack on Julian Assange has begun. I only get to listen to NPR in the car and I drive as little as possible. Some say, NPR, our ministry of information, has always been on the war team. Others say, just since Obama’s ascendancy. Moi, I don’t care.

If you are going to have long wars, this type of thing is bound to happen. Sooner or later, somebody is going to out something. Is it good or bad? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

We at the Neutralist don’t care for the argument. We merely point out that Afghanistan is the reductio ad absurdam of our USA world policeman schtick. We only wonder what will be the next wee contretemps.

If a US grunt is killed due to a wikileaks exposé, then I resent that. If the leaks lead to us leaving sooner rather than later and less dead American lads, I rejoice.

Admiral Mullen, really give some thought to the blood on hands biz.

The McChrystal Affair-It's only the first time, we're just feeling our way here

So McChrystal has been relieved. Obama let him go and talk radio is on the president's case. The Neutralist believes the best point in the discussion was made by a retired intel officer, Col. Patrick Lang. The colonel is hardly some fanatic leftie Obamista,

The principle has always been in this country that the federal military is an instrument of state policy. Our tradition is designed to prevent the emergence of "Caesarism" as a method of picking leaders or determining basic national policy. To maintain that principle Macarthur was fired on the advice of George Marshall. What McChrystal has done is to challenge President Obama.

That the talkmeisters did not get this and just jerked their knees is understandable. Most are just party Republicans who will do anything to get a teammate in the White House even if it's only Mitt Romney's hair and they have to forget that constitution they claim fealty to.

The Neutralist believes there is a bigger story here. This is the first time since MacArthur we have had an incident and this one is different. The general did not just disagree, he called his boss a stiff when you boiled it down.

So the CinC dismisses him. Everyone is happy.

Pas Moi.

If we have eternal war, why would we not have more of these incidents? How long until the tide of "let the generals run the war, they're the professionals" becomes overwhelming.

Disengagement leading to Neutralism is essential, because we run chance for many evils, including "Caesarism"

Year Ten of the Bush-Obama Administration

Hat tip to LRC Blog.

Lest we forget

Another blogger thinks a 911 holiday is in order. Don't know about the holiday thing, but I commented on his blog.

As to remembering 911, I'm all for it. Remember that it led us into two wars that have no purpose and have aided in our collapse.

Let's remember the chickenhawks who cheerlead and never went.

Please tell me what is to win in Iraq and Afghanistan? OBL did not attack us with a carrier fleet. The thing to do was tighten the borders, not send an army to not catch the bogeyman.

On the AntiWar.com blog it has been noted that we have passed 1,000 dead in the Afghan debacle. It is the flower of our youth dead to no purpose other than that noted in Burkeman's comment.

The war against the "Taliban" is a jobs work program. It is a low level war with tolerably low casualties (for Americans) but supremely profitable overhead.

We have to fight them over there so they won't bomb a Lion King matinee here

or shoot up Fort Hood, or get on a plane with loaded underwear.

Okay, kids, I'm going to say it again, 911 and the subsequent terror events involving Muslims have all been border and immigration control failures.

Does anyone believe that if we bring the troops home and forget the war, that the terrorists will build carrier fleets and bomb the Big Apple from the sky and land an army on Cape May?

What is the point? and Plus ça again and again and again.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.