Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditYesterday afternoon at the Brookings Institution, four analysts portrayed a bleak and terrifying vision of the current state of affairs in Afghanistan in the wake of the presidential election. All four were hawkish, reflecting a growing consensus in the Washington establishment that the Afghanistan war is only just beginning.
Their conclusions: (1) A significant escalation of the war will be necessary to avoid utter defeat. (2) Even if tens of thousands of troops are added to the US occupation, it won't be possible to determine if the US/NATO effort is succeeding until eighteen months later. (3) Even if the United States turns the tide in Afghanistan, no significant drawdown of US forces will take place until five years have passed.
The experts at the panel were Bruce Riedel, a 30-year CIA veteran and adviser to four presidents, who chaired President Obama's Afghan task force; Michael O'Hanlon, a military expert and adviser to General David Petraeus; Tony Cordesman, a conservative military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; and Kim Kagan, head of the Institute for the Study of War.
Not a single panelist questioned the goals, purpose or objectives of the Afghan war. Not one said anything about a political solution to the war, about negotiations, or about diplomacy. Not one questioned the viability of an open-ended commitment to the war. And none of them had any doubts about the strategic necessity of defeating the Taliban and its allies. Although the growing political opposition to the war was referenced in passing -- more than half of Americans say the the war isn't worth fighting, and liberal-left members of Congress are beginning to raise objections -- the panel seemed to believe that President Obama can and must ignore politics and push to expand the war when General McChrystal, as expected, recommends an increase in the the level of US forces once again. O'Hanlon, a well-connected, ultra-hawkish Democrat who backed the war in Iraq, said that the chances that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will lead congressional opposition to the war in Afghanistan in 2009-2010 are zero. "Congress will not pull the rug out from under Barack Obama, before the mid-term elections," he asserted, calling the very idea "unthinkable" and "political suicide."
O'Hanlon, who had just returned from Afghanistan, acknowledged that McChrystal is "fully aware that, right now, America is not winning this war." But he gently scolded Admiral Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs, for saying that the war is "deteriorating." If Mullen goes around saying that in public, even after the addition of 21,000 US troops in 2009, he makes it harder to convince Americans that the war is winnable. O'Hanlon strongly favors adding yet more troops, but he didn't provide numbers on how many forces the US will need ultimately. If the United States can turn things around, "In four to five years we will be able to substantially downsize."
The bleakest account of the war came from Cordesman, Washington's resident Cassandra. He delivered a blistering assessment of the Bush administration's complete failure to pursue the Afghan war, with "almost no coherence in strategy" for seven years. President Bush, he said, didn't properly "resource" (i.e., fund) the war, kept troop levels far too low, and failed to build the Afghan National Army (ANA). In addition, he said, US intelligence was extremely poor. The Bush administration and the Pentagon lied about how the war was going, saying, for instance, that only 13 out of 364 Afghan districts were threatened by the Taliban, when if fact nearly half of the country was under siege. And he said that, even under McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry, a former military commander, coordination between the military command and the embassy is "extremely poor."
Cordesman warned that McChrystal and the NATO/ISAF command is under pressure from the White House and the National Security Council not to increase troops levels, and he warned that if "politically correct" limitations are imposed on the US war effort, "I believe we will lose this war." He blasted General James Jones, the national security adviser, for expressing White House opposition to additional troops during a meeting with McChrystal at which Bob Woodward of the Washington Post was present. Of the four panelists, Cordesman was the only one who suggested that Obama and the NSC might resist McChrystal's request for additional forces.
Riedel presented a series of alternative outcomes of the presidential election, which may or may not result in a second-round runoff election in October. He seemed gloomy about the overall election results, noting that overall turnout was held to 30 to 40 percent, and that in some provinces turnout would be far less, below 20 percent. In some areas, less than 5 percent of women voted at all, he said. And he said that President Karzai, if he wins, will emerge even more dependent than before on warlords. Indeed, amid charges of widespread fraud being leveled by leading opposition candidates, general apathy and disaffection about the vote from the majority Pashtun population, and effective Taliban-led intimidation, the election may not create any sense of legitimacy for the next government. (According to Cordesman, "Regardless of who wins, we will not have people capable of governing the country.")
But Riedel's more apocalyptic point came in response to a questioner who wondered why the war is important. If we lose in Afghanistan, or if we withdraw, it will trigger a victorious war dance throughout the Muslim world by radicals and militants, he said. Riedel portrayed the stakes in the war as nothing less than dealing a fatal blow to jihadism. "The triumph of jihadism, in driving NATO out of Afghanistan, will resonate throughout the Muslim world," he said, comparing it to the belief among many Al Qaeda and Taliban types that the defeat of the USSR in Afghanistan in the 1980s led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nowhere did Riedel suggest that there is a middle ground between crushing the Taliban and an outright Taliban victory over the United States, say, by reaching a political solution brokered by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other outside parties with large sections of the Taliban leadership. Nor did any of the panelists suggest that it's possible to split Al Qaeda and the most extreme elements of the anti-Western forces in Afghanistan-Pakistan away from other Islamists, such as the Taliban's core leadership and guerrilla chieftains such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a former US and CIA ally in the 1980s, who is now a key ally of the Taliban.
Martin Indyk, who runs foreign policy for Brookings, asked Riedel if reality, so far, clashed with the plan that he helped draw up for Obama earlier this year. No, said Riedel. He said that Obama had inherited a disaster in Afghanistan from the Bush administration."Trying to turn that around overnight is an illusion," he said. (He failed to note that in trying to turn it around, Obama is turning it in the wrong direction, i.e., toward escalation rather than de-escalation.) "Anyone who thinks that in 12 to 18 months we're going to be anywhere close to victory is living in a fantasy," Riedel said. He did leave open the possibility that the conflict is now unwinnable, and that the US escalation is "too little, too late." But, like the rest of the panelists, Riedel suggested that there is no alternative to victory.
Sadly, like Richard Holbrooke, who two weeks ago told a Washington audience that he can't define victory, none of the panelists bothered to explain what victory might look like either -- only that it will take a decade or more to get there.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
the Afghanistan war is a punitive expedition turned failed nation building.
the alternative is peace, preceded by a cease fire. you cannot "win" against a foe who has the support, if coerced, of the vast majority of the population.
the fact that this war is entering its ninth year is a testament to failure.
victory is not victory if it is not swift. I paraphrase von Clausewitz.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/26/2009 @ 09:26am
DREYFUSS: "Not a single panelist questioned the goals, purpose or objectives of the Afghan war."
There, national unity (represented by 4 seasoned analysts) and loyalty to our magical CIC!
As long-time fans of mine know, I support whatever our magical CIC wants to do w/Afghanistan AS LONG AS he succeeds in leaving it better off than on the eve of 9/11/01.
As a conservative and Libertarian Repub, I am relieved that at least Magic is NOT fighting this war politically for us, as our side can't stop him in the (impossible) event of a unified opposition. He is in this war for his Dem constituents, supporters and himself. It's now his war. I wish him lots of luck as I believe, both the Afghanis and he himself, will need lots of.
Posted by Happy at 08/26/2009 @ 09:42am
posted by ROBERT DREYFUSS on 08/26/2009 @ 09:22am
Did any topics come up such as
"what is the likely economic impact on the US of continued warfare in Iraq assuming we escalate and continue for several years?" or
"to what extent did the 'diversion' of Iraq contribute to the direness of the situation in Afghanistan?" or
"what really would happen if the US were to attempt to divide the Taliban and work with the less extreme components?" or
"what is the likely opportunity cost to the domestic economic functioning of the US if escalation is the route forward in Afghanistan?"
or "where is the money going to come from?"
or "what is the final exit strategy proposed by the proponents of escalation in detail?"
Posted by syfriendly at 08/26/2009 @ 10:26am
Posted by emile duBois at 08/26/2009 @ 09:26am | ignore this person | warn this person
You paraphrase Machiavelli as well who declares that, in essence, a Prince cannot stay in a foreign territory for long without the consent of the people.
I wonder how many people really do realize that the chance to win in Iraq - "win" defined as "crush the Taliban militarily, capture or kill bin Laden, completely disrupt al-Qaida, and then leave" - a pure military victory, which is all we could have had - was lost the day the first American soldier set foot in Iraq.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/26/2009 @ 10:29am
Mr Dreyfuss, you and many Nation bloggers here from the left cannot seem to fathom the potential danger to the US and the entire world if we pull out of Afghanistan.
There is sound reasoning behind the consensus that you find such dismay with.
A Taliban that regains control of Afghanistan coupled with 1)a resurgent Al Qaeda, 2)the Pakistani Taliban and 3) the Pakistan Intelligence (ISI) would be devastating to any hopes for peace not only in the region but throughout the world and especially to Europe and the US.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 10:30am
I wonder how many people really do realize that the chance to win in Iraq - "win" defined as "crush the Taliban militarily, capture or kill bin Laden, completely disrupt al-Qaida, and then leave" - a pure military victory, which is all we could have had - was lost the day the first American soldier set foot in Iraq.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/26/2009 @ 10:29am
That is pure nonsense. The Iraq war did nothing to detract from the effort in Afghanistan.
this is just another leftwing myth
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 10:32am
Can you say Vietnam. Unfortunately, I do not believe there is much possibility for a middle ground political solution. And unlike Vietnam, there may be real geopolitical consequences to cut and run. What a tar baby disaster. I hope the russians don't get to laugh last.
Posted by gren at 08/26/2009 @ 10:55am
That is pure nonsense. The Iraq war did nothing to detract from the effort in Afghanistan.
this is just another leftwing myth
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009
And this is pure horseshit. Undeniably, the 150,000 troops in Iraq would have made a big difference had they been in Afghanistan instead. To suggest otherwise is blind partisian idiocy.
Posted by Balrog at 08/26/2009 @ 11:11am
"As long-time fans of mine know, I support whatever our magical CIC wants to do w/Afghanistan AS LONG AS he succeeds in leaving it better off than on the eve of 9/11/01. "---Posted by Happy at 08/26/2009 @ 09:42am
Kinda, yes....
"And, I am among the 52% who want us out of Iraq, "regardless if we "win" there", IF that's what my chosen POTUS elects to do.....we'll worry about how the shit may or may NOT hit the fan years or decades down the road."----Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/28/2008 @ 3:39pm
A Serious Question of Character posted by John Nichols on 07/28/2008 @ 2:04pm
Posted by Mask at 08/26/2009 @ 11:14am
Antisocialist, you're right that there's a danger involved. The question is -- and maybe we disagree on this one -- how much of a danger. Al Qaeda types can strike at us from Germany, Somalia, Yemen, or the UK. So far, they haven't. Is the danger of an attack so existential that we need to spend a trillion dollars in Afghanistan, losing thousands of lives and killing many more thousands of Afghans? Or can we absorb the occasional attack, if it comes, and hit back when we need to? Plus, we can lessen the danger by working with ISI and its Taliban friends, too.
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 08/26/2009 @ 11:14am
That is pure nonsense. The Iraq war did nothing to detract from the effort in Afghanistan.
this is just another leftwing myth
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 10:32am
you're right.
america has the money and resources to fight 17 wars simultaneously.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/26/2009 @ 11:19am
Or can we absorb the occasional attack, if it comes, and hit back when we need to?
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 08/26/2009 @ 11:14am
What?!? ALLOW our ENEMIES to STRIKE US!!!
The National Penis would shrink irretrievably!
Posted by Balrog at 08/26/2009 @ 11:21am
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 08/26/2009 @ 11:14am
Naturally, Mr Dreyfuss, Larry/antisoc and others will cite the 3000 lost on 9/11...
and calmly dismiss the fact that we surpassed that number AGAIN in casualties in the "War on Terror" by 2006.
Posted by Mask at 08/26/2009 @ 11:37am
antisocialist-I'm not a lefty,but do realize that Iraq did cause us to not put the proper resources into Afghanistan and for that reason it is too late to achieve anything there so we may as well leave.Your side failed to learn from history.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/26/2009 @ 11:40am
And this is pure horseshit. Undeniably, the 150,000 troops in Iraq would have made a big difference had they been in Afghanistan instead. To suggest otherwise is blind partisian idiocy.
Posted by Balrog at 08/26/2009 @ 11:11am
We did not divert any troops from Afghanistan to Iraq. There is no record of the military command in Afghanistan asking for 150,000 troops.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 12:51pm
Let a hundred wars bloom & bloom ... watch, Bloomberg in '12, the Great Manager.
If Brookings correct, Obama will be seriously challenged in '12 as a weak manager.
Bleak times getting bleaker.
Posted by sloper at 08/26/2009 @ 12:52pm
Antisocialist, you're right that there's a danger involved. The question is -- and maybe we disagree on this one -- how much of a danger. Al Qaeda types can strike at us from Germany, Somalia, Yemen, or the UK. So far, they haven't. Is the danger of an attack so existential that we need to spend a trillion dollars in Afghanistan, losing thousands of lives and killing many more thousands of Afghans? Or can we absorb the occasional attack, if it comes, and hit back when we need to? Plus, we can lessen the danger by working with ISI and its Taliban friends, too.
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 08/26/2009 @ 11:14am
I know that I and many other Americans believe that the cost you propose is too great. What you are suggesting is the age old liberal philosophy of responding to attacks from a declared enemy rather than being on the offense.
I don't believe you can cite a single war that was ever won on by playing defense.
Furthermore, I realize that for several months now you have proposed that we can work with the ISI and elements of the Taliban. I do not share your belief that there is a serious opportunity. At best they would be working both sides (as has been the history of the ISI).
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 1:09pm
Commanders in Afghanistan have been begging dc for substantially more troops for years.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/26/2009 @ 1:23pm
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 1:09pm
'Lest anybody construe that Larry's "go on offense" is tepid...or mild-mannered...or sane?
"Tell the military to take off their safety's, find some "Patton" style leaders; also, think Dresden; tell the president, his advisors, and the military staff to quit worrying about public opinion and just destroy every enemy-no prisoners."----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/21/2007 @ 10:50am
Posted by Mask at 08/26/2009 @ 2:08pm
Can Iran help the U.S.?
Posted by Anti-imperialist at 08/26/2009 @ 2:35pm
"Tell the military to take off their safety's, find some "Patton" style leaders; also, think Dresden; tell the president, his advisors, and the military staff to quit worrying about public opinion and just destroy every enemy-no prisoners."----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/21/2007 @ 10:50am
Posted by Mask at 08/26/2009 @ 2:08pm
Well, Like Patton, I believe in not only winning, but losing as few of our own people as possible.
Your constant belittling of this indicates your position is just the opposite. You don't want to win and you don't mind losing lots of our troops if it means they come home in disgrace.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 2:48pm
Can Iran help the U.S.?
Posted by Anti-imperialist at 08/26/2009 @ 2:35pm
Could they? Yes. Will they, not likely. The Mullahs and the Ayatollah still consider the US to be part of what needs to be destroyed in order for Allah to reign on earth.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 3:42pm
"Tell the military to take off their safety's, find some "Patton" style leaders; also, think Dresden; tell the president, his advisors, and the military staff to quit worrying about public opinion and just destroy every enemy-no prisoners."----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/21/2007 @ 10:50am
This is almost becoming a real social disease in America to compare every conflict we ignite to World War II, as if there are not other conflicts to reference. Afghanistan is a situation closer to the French in Algeria, South Africa in Angola and yes, our own involvement in Vietnam. Wake up and smell reality. If we leave now our country can at least have some dignity left since we can still avoid an even more horrendous catastrophe.
Posted by Communard115 at 08/26/2009 @ 4:04pm
These liberals suffer from pure mental delusion! "Absorb the occasional AQ attack"?!? How dare they say such a thing? Don't they realize that 9/11 could have killed 10,000 people under different circumstances? Don't they realize the shock it gave to the world economy caused 40,000 excess deaths?
We had a surplus of troops in Afghanistan in 2003 and 2004 and 2005 and 2006. Then, the Taliban mounted a renewed insurgency. Since most Afghans support us and the Taliban is a minority of roughly 10,000 people, this war will be won if we choose to win it. Iraq had nothing to do with the renewed Taliban offensive and we took no troops out of Afghanistan to go to Iraq. In fact, we needed more troops in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 and 2005 and 2006 while in Afghanistan we had a surplus.
The left should not be arguing that we should withdraw in order to "absorb" more AQ terror attacks while turning the other cheek to a genocidal Taliban takeover. It should be arguing that since there are 15 times as many Afghan security forces as there are Taliban, they ought to be able to destroy the insurgency.
The main issue preventing victory is really our crazed war on drugs in Afghanistan.
Iraq would have devolved into a genocidal anarchy ruled by jihadist warlords absent our intervention. We've given Iraq a chance to be a stable and prosperous democracy. If not for us, Iraq would have become as devastated as Afghanistan and rebuilding it would have been much more difficult.
The fact that leftists somehow think Iraq has ensured defeat in Afghanistan only shows just how twisted the darkest depths of their deranged delusion really are.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 4:22pm
Iraq would have devolved into a genocidal anarchy ruled by jihadist warlords absent our intervention. We've given Iraq a chance to be a stable and prosperous democracy. If not for us, Iraq would have become as devastated as Afghanistan and rebuilding it would have been much more difficult.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009
Let me help you with your wording:
Iraq has devolved into a genocidal anarchy ruled by hihadist warlords BECAUSE of our intervention. Iraq has NO CHANCE to be a stable and prosperous democracy. BECAUSE of us, Iraq has become just as devastated as Afghanistan and rebuilding it will be just a difficult.
Posted by Balrog at 08/26/2009 @ 5:14pm
In getting out,simply, there is NO threat to America the Nation, as defined by a Buchanan or Paul on the Right or Chalmers Johnson or Nader on the Left.
I myself would, while egressing,(including dismantling the American Empire's bases,) force Israel off the West Bank and Samaria, cut off all aid to both Israel and Egypt, then announce to the Arab/Moslem world we would be a non-interventionist friend to all and side with none in any ongoing disputes. As tradcon James Burham said, our oil supply would be assured-whoever owned the oil would sell it at market prices.
Ongoing would be our strengthening of defenses -this also via economic autarky and a moratorium on all immigration. If Arab/Moslem attacks then occured on the continent, most unlikely due to the reduction of animus, I would begin arranging for the deportation of recently arrived ethnics from the Arab/Moslem world, saving enough for proper cultural/social exchange purposes. I believe bin Laden offered some of these truce terms many years and many lives ago.
Posted by zionopp at 08/26/2009 @ 5:32pm
Let me get this straight.
The VERY SURVIVAL of the republic is at stake, hence the WWII analogies of the neocons are on full deluded display, and we STILL don't have a reinstituted draft, sending a million-plus troops "over there" to "win"?
Under this administration OR the last?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/26/2009 @ 5:49pm
The VERY SURVIVAL of the republic is at stake, hence the WWII analogies of the neocons are on full deluded display, and we STILL don't have a reinstituted draft, sending a million-plus troops "over there" to "win"?
Under this administration OR the last?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/26/2009 @ 5:49pm
I'm all for the draft. I believe that every able bodied man should serve in the military.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 6:14pm
Very well.
I'm just not seeing what would normally be considered the rightist cohort in the Congress calling for that, during this Administration or the last. I think they fear it, as it may inhibit adventurism if doctors' and lawyers' kids were sucked into the military en masse, and ended up in places they may never have heard of.
It may be that the last time I heard a Congressman call for that, it was one Charles Rangel(D) of New York.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/26/2009 @ 6:45pm
be careful for which you wish, antisocialist. an attempted draft would tear apart what remains of the American social fabric. which is why I believe the ruling elite doesn't attempt such.
Posted by zionopp at 08/26/2009 @ 7:09pm
I'm all for the draft. I believe that every able bodied man should serve in the military.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 6:14pm
ladies would make it smell funny.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/26/2009 @ 7:24pm
Attempting to institute a draft at this point would idiotic, and career suicide for lots officeholders if they tried to do it. The public just watched the disaster of Iraq proceed. They watched a presidential administration provoke a complete unnecessary war with a foreign country, after executing a vast lie campaign here in the US. The public just watched a disastrous occupation that is resulting in a slow but steady US pullout, with bombs going off as the troops leave the cities. The public just watched the Bush administration botch the Afghanistan war, leaving bin Laden alive and free, and the Taliban resurgent. These wars are now very unpopular with the public.
If, somehow, a draft was instituted at this point, it would largely result in tremendous resistance from the public. The draft would be unenforceable as entire sectors of the country would refuse to participate and would actively shelter the rivers of "evaders" and "refusers".
The US has lost credibility with its own population as far as the guarantee the national government used to have with us that it will not wrongfully and/or incompetently use the armed forces. We have a broken military (according to its generals and admirals), undefined strategic objectives, and a slow, inevitable loss underway of our twin occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Lots and lots of people have been killed and maimed. Communities have been destroyed. Our intelligence services and military have engaged in naked human rights violations.
Attempting to bring back the draft under these conditions is ludicrous, even if one can support morally enslaving men to send them to kill and die in combat with no choice in the matter.
The entire discussion itself is silly.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/26/2009 @ 7:38pm
Fortunately figures like "antisocialist" - the absolute raving loony-right maniacs of the population - are members of the small kooky fringe of the Republican party, nothing more. They are as frequent as buffalo were 75 years ago. There are probably many, many more Muslim immigrants alone in the US than there are loony-right kooks.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/26/2009 @ 7:44pm
Fortunately figures like "antisocialist" - the absolute raving loony-right maniacs of the population - are members of the small kooky fringe of the Republican party, nothing more. They are as frequent as buffalo were 75 years ago. There are probably many, many more Muslim immigrants alone in the US than there are loony-right kooks.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/26/2009 @ 7:44pm
According to the gallup polls, more people identify currently as conservative, and liberals are the smallest group.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 7:53pm
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 7:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person
hahahahah
According to polls, fewer people are identifying as Republican than since ... the Magna Carta.
According to polls, the great majority of people want the Iraq war over, want the Afghanistan war over, want a choice on a public option in health care reform, and want greater regulation on the financial system and banks. People want Medicare enhanced, not dismantled. People support the Social Security system.
According to polls, the vast majority of people accept the reality of human-impacted global warming, and want greater environmental regulations and leadership.
If you want to go by the polls, raving loony-right maniacs, the kook fringe of the Republican party (ie, crazies like you), are not as infrequent as buffalo 75 years ago. The buffalo were too numerous and frequently encountered by comparison.
Oh yeah, one more thing:
Put down that AR-15!!! Medicare *IS* a government program!!!
Posted by syfriendly at 08/26/2009 @ 8:05pm
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 7:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Face it, man. Not everyone thinks that problems in the Middle East should be addressed with an eye towards assuring that Israel takes over the entire West Bank and Gaza because that is the only way that Jesus will return to Earth in the second coming, the Jews will be converted to Christiandom, and then all of us will face the Rapture and go to heaven or burn in hell. Your belief along those lines places you right in the vanishingly small populations of weirdos who wear tin-foil hates, or believe that the moon landing was faked, or that Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy from within the government, or that Elvis Presley is still alive, or that there are bodies of little green men from space hidden in Roswell, New Mexico.
You're a rare and beautiful flower, really, a truly amazing man.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/26/2009 @ 8:10pm
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 7:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Put down the "repent" sign! Obama was born in the US!
Posted by syfriendly at 08/26/2009 @ 8:11pm
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 7:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person
And now, if you don't mind, I have to go to the first rock show in my life in a venue where, apparently, one is expected to sit down in a numbered seat for the performance. How utterly dry, I've been dragged into it, I'll have to drink a lot beforehand so I have an excuse to get up and run to the restroom for a loooong break.
But none of that is either here nor there with respect to you. You have an utterly demented worldview built on a combination of fanaticism and selective filtering of facts coming into your mind such that you only hear what you want to believe.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/26/2009 @ 8:25pm
According to the gallup polls, more people identify currently as conservative, and liberals are the smallest group.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 7:53pm
According to the only poll that counts, the White House, Senate and Congress are populated by liberal majorities.
As far as conservatism goes, the right wing movement are not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination.
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 9:29pm
According to the only poll that counts, the White House, Senate and Congress are populated by liberal majorities.
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 9:29pm
How sweet it is! Or, is it?
All that the "majorities" have managed to do, is to set a peacetime record for annual deficits while stimulating UNemployment and the Green Shoots of conservatism.
Nice job!
Posted by Happy at 08/26/2009 @ 10:05pm
These liberals suffer from pure mental delusion! "Absorb the occasional AQ attack"?!? How dare they say such a thing? Don't they realize that 9/11 could have killed 10,000 people under different circumstances? Don't they realize the shock it gave to the world economy caused 40,000 excess deaths?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 4:22pm
And the right wing response was to attack a country that never attacked or threatened us.
There is no winnig the war in Afghanistan, which is why most Americans no longer suport it.There are no defined goals, no clear idea of what we want to achieve or how to ahcieve it. Just like Iraq.
The left are not arguing that we should withdraw in order to "absorb" more AQ terror attacks. They are arujng that we should withdraw from Afghanistan and other countreiss to prevent more AQ attacks. The head of AQ has said they woudl not atatck the US if we withdrew.
When it comes to you LFTO, everything is about genocidal takeover. There was no genocidal takeover the first time the Taliban took over, so why should we believe you now?
Only right wing loons maintain that Iraq would have devolved into a genocidal anarchy ruled by jihadist warlords absent our intervention. Our intervention created that very genocide, killing 1.2 million Iraqis.
There is nothing stable or prosperous about Iraq's democracy. In fact, the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people is demanding that we leave.
There is no evidence or logic to support the thesis that Iraq would have become as devastated had we not destroyed the country first.
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 10:06pm
All that the "majorities" have managed to do, is to set a peacetime record for annual deficits while stimulating UNemployment and the Green Shoots of conservatism.
Nice job!
Posted by Happy at 08/26/2009 @ 10:05pm
Correction. They were handed a poisoned chalice by an administration that destroyed the US economy and ran up the national debt.
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 10:09pm
"And the right wing response was to attack a country that never attacked or threatened us."
Afghanistan and Iraq both had attacked us. Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11. Iraq tried to assassinate one of our Presidents after publicly calling for jihad against America. It then got involved in the 1993 WTC attack. In 1998, Saddam attempted to carry out at least one foiled terror attack against a US target that we prevented. Clinton argued it was revenge for the Iraq Liberation Act.
"The left are not arguing that we should withdraw in order to "absorb" more AQ terror attacks."
Dreyfuss wrote:
"Is the danger of an attack so existential that we need to spend a trillion dollars in Afghanistan, losing thousands of lives and killing many more thousands of Afghans? Or can we absorb the occasional attack, if it comes,"
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 11:00pm
"The head of AQ has said they woudl not atatck the US if we withdrew."
Well, let's take their word for it, then.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 11:01pm
"There was no genocidal takeover the first time the Taliban took over, so why should we believe you now?"
The Taliban killed hundreds of thousands and left millions at risk of death by starvation and disease.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 11:03pm
Afghanistan and Iraq both had attacked us.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 11:00pm
Rubbish.
No one from Afghanistan attacked us. In fact, none of the 19 hijackers were from Afghanistan and no one accused with the attack were from Afghanistan .
Iraq never tried to assassinate one of our Presidents.
Iran never publicly calling for jihad against America until we attached Iraq.
Iraq had nothing to do with the 1993 WTC attack.
There was no 1998 attempted to carry out any terror attack against a US target.
Clinton didn't believe it either, but was just playing party politics.
Dreyfuss may have argue that we can absorb the occasional attack, if it comes, not "the left". Unless of course, you want to be branded with everything that comes out of Glenn Back or Anne Coulter's mouth.
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 11:15pm
Well, let's take their word for it, then.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 11:01pm
Right wingers love to quote AQ and Iranian leaders when it suits them and ignore what they say when it doesn't. Right wingers can't make a cogent argument without forever shifting the goal posts.
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 11:17pm
Iraq committed and attempted aggression against our country.
Like Israel getting hit with rockets by Hamas, the left says that we should have absorbed Iraq's naked aggression for peace because it did not pose a threat to the very existence of our nation. You yourself have said that since the existence of America was not threatened by Pearl Harbor, our military response to it was unjust.
"Dreyfuss may have argue that we can absorb the occasional attack, if it comes, not "the left"."
I never said "the left". I warned leftists not to embrace Dreyfuss' hysterical argument:
"The left should not argue that we should withdraw in order to "absorb" more AQ terror attacks while turning the other cheek to a genocidal Taliban takeover. It should be arguing that since there are 15 times as many Afghan security forces as there are Taliban, they ought to be able to destroy the insurgency."
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 11:26pm
Is Mr. Dryfuss the new "Prophet of Doom" surplanting Mohammad now? Somehow it is hard to buy into the analogy. Say there sure were a lot of Afghans actuall voting in that election that is almost tied! Seems they care little for the taliban threats, I just wonder why?
Posted by BigPasture at 08/26/2009 @ 11:49pm
Iraq never committed or attempted aggression against our country. Never.
Iraq's aggression only began when we illegally invade and occupied them. Hamas's aggression against Israel is also due to illegal and violent occupation.
Pearl Harbor caused damager to Pearl harbor. It did not threaten America.
I never said "the left". I warned leftists not to embrace Dreyfuss' hysterical argument:"
From the very same post:
"the left says that we should have absorbed Iraq's naked aggression"
Your losing it LFTO.
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 11:49pm
"Iraq's aggression only began when we illegally invade and occupied them. Hamas's aggression against Israel is also due to illegal and violent occupation."
Wrong again. Hamas attacked Israel after it withdrew from Gaza. Iraq attacked us before 2003.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 12:00am
Wrong again. Hamas attacked Israel after it withdrew from Gaza. Iraq attacked us before 2003.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 12:00am
Rubbish. Israel never took their foot off the throat of Gaza.
Over the 12 months after Israel withdrew, Israel fired 7,700 shells into Gaza.
The one and only comprehensive scholarly history of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, called "Lords of the Land", by Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar, says:
"After Israel withdrew it's forces from Gaza, in August 2005, the ruined territory was not released for even a single day from Israel's military grip, or from the price of the occupation that the inhabitants pay every day. Israel left behind scotched earth, devastated services, and people with nearly a present or a future. The Jewish settlements were destroyed in an ungenerous move by an unenlightened occupier, which in fact continues to control the territory and kill and harass it's inhabitants, by means of it's formidable military might."
"Iraq attacked us before 2003."
Iraq never attacked us.
Posted by Shingo at 08/27/2009 @ 12:05am
shingo-The attack on Pearl Harbor only caused damage to the harbor?
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/27/2009 @ 12:08am
shingo-The attack on Pearl Harbor only caused damage to the harbor?
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/27/2009 @ 12:08am
My point being that it never came close to threatening America's existence.
Posted by Shingo at 08/27/2009 @ 12:15am
shingo-You do not have to threaten my entire familys existence in order for me to respond.Just killing a few of them will get me to respond..Same with Pearl Harbor.Do agree with you about Iraq,however.They did not kill any of my family members.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/27/2009 @ 12:23am
shingo-You do not have to threaten my entire familys existence in order for me to respond.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/27/2009 @ 12:23am
I never suggested otherwise. I was debating the fact that neither 911 nor Peral Harbor were a threat to our existence.
Posted by Shingo at 08/27/2009 @ 12:31am
Shingo-In the long run the Japanese could have been a threat to our existence with the advancement of technology.At the time they were behind in that which gave us the edge,but we know that once the Japanese got the idea of advanced technology they became the leaders in it and they would have used that for war and conquering considering their mindset back then.20/20 hindsight says that the war happened at the right time in history.The Japanese are the leaders in peaceful technology with their new non militaristic mindset.The world should follow their example.9/11 is a different matter.It is difficult to fight against terrorists with conventional means.That requires elite units and law enforcement unless you are willing to wage total war on the entire region which we have the power to do..Used to think that may be a good idea,but changed my mind.Too many would die.Elite units and law enforcement is best.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/27/2009 @ 12:42am
The whole point of having an empire is holding on to it.
The bases the US established in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't permanent, they're just going to be there for decades... Give or take a dozen years, however long it takes to turn these places into western-friendly, non-evil sort of places.
Posted by koroviev at 08/27/2009 @ 12:44am
Elite units and law enforcement is best.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/27/2009 @ 12:42am
I agree 100%
Posted by Shingo at 08/27/2009 @ 12:47am
I think that the ideological paradigms which many posters adhere to distort many facts.
If the argument is that the us SHOULD NOT HAVE LAUNCHED AN ALL-OUT WAR AGAINST Japan because the Pearl Harbour bombing did not substantially threaten the rest of America, I disagree. It is foolish and irresponsible to wait until one is threatened with destruction before one resorts to military action. Pearl Harbor was a potent military attack by a potent enemy that was seeking to conquer an empire throughout the Pacific. america did the right thing in seeking to destroy japanese military might.
Another example is Israel in 1948 and 1967. Each time, confronted by threats of military destruction by larger enemies whose armies were activated and massed along the borders, it would have been suicide for Israel to wait until actually being attacked before undertaking self-defense. A pre-emptive attack in such situations is legitimate self-defense.
Al Quada / Sept. 11 is difficult to evaluate. Al Quada was and is half a globe away, with limited size, limited resources. It took Al Quaida 7 years to plan 9/11. They are more of an irritant than a threat. Nevertheless, irritants can grow into threats, and al Quaida seeks to become a threat. So there is merit to conflicting opinions about US military action against al Quaida.
Posted by gren at 08/27/2009 @ 08:57am
Very simple reason the neo-cons love the "War on Terror is the same as World War-II" analogy...
but eschew all the HARD stuff that went along with World War-II...like a draft, higher taxes, control over industries, etc....
because it would have been POLITICALLY damaging to Republicans and Bush, especially in his re-election bid in 2004. And likely have costed the Republicans even more seats in 2006 and 2008.
They wanted all the glory of "our World War-II...We're the NEW 'Greatest Generation'."...but none of the risk. They wanted it "on the cheap".
Also very few of the proponents had any personal or family risk involved in it.
Posted by Mask at 08/27/2009 @ 10:15am
Posted by gren:
"What a tar baby disaster. I hope the russians don't get to laugh last."
Zhirinovsky supports US/NATO war in Afghanistan. He said that it is the first time in history that foreign powers serve Russian interest.
What more can be said? :(
Posted by APole at 08/27/2009 @ 12:33pm
Very simple reason the neo-cons love the "War on Terror is the same as World War-II" analogy...
but eschew all the HARD stuff that went along with World War-II...like a draft, higher taxes, control over industries, etc....
because it would have been POLITICALLY damaging to Republicans and Bush, especially in his re-election bid in 2004. And likely have costed the Republicans even more seats in 2006 and 2008.
They wanted all the glory of "our World War-II...We're the NEW 'Greatest Generation'."...but none of the risk. They wanted it "on the cheap".
Also very few of the proponents had any personal or family risk involved in it.
Posted by Mask at 08/27/2009 @ 10:15am
You remain incorrect on your conclusion. I think it is because you are so influenced by your love of FDR's socialist light govt.
The difference is in how our economy operates today vs 1942, and until Obama, we have not had a president who viewed taxpayers as pawns.
One one issue, I do have a separate view and that is the draft. I think we never should have abolished the draft. And Mask, you can blame Democrats for that action.
How would a takeover of industries helped with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? In fact, most Democrats and leftists would have been howling cries of fascist takeover.
Nor were higher taxes necessary. Until the latest recession hit, we were well on the way to being back in a state of surplus, all with TAXCUTS in place.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 12:40pm
The difference is in how our economy operates today vs 1942, and until Obama, we have not had a president who viewed taxpayers as pawns.
@@@ hahahahahahahaha!
Nor were higher taxes necessary. Until the latest recession hit, we were well on the way to being back in a state of surplus, all with TAXCUTS in place.
@@@ hahahahahahahaha!
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 12:40pm |
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/27/2009 @ 2:23pm
"I think we never should have abolished the draft."
Why? As a believer in constitutional government, don't you think our "right to life" means that the government cannot use force to make us fight in wars in which we could die or be wounded?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 6:29pm
"I think we never should have abolished the draft."
Why? As a believer in constitutional government, don't you think our "right to life" means that the government cannot use force to make us fight in wars in which we could die or be wounded?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 6:29pm
I believe as the founders did that every able bodied man should serve his country. They didn't have a draft because it was inconceivable that it would even be necessary since everyone volunteered at the slightest need.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 7:44pm
I believe as the founders did that every able bodied man should serve his country. They didn't have a draft because it was inconceivable that it would even be necessary since everyone volunteered at the slightest need.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 7:44pm
You are misinformed as usual.
The founding fathers were opposed to standing armies, thus, woudl not have advocated a draft for the sake of maintaining those standing armies.
They didn't have a draft becasue in times of real perfil, where this country was being attacked, volunteers did come foward. Clearly, when we were not being attacked, there was no need for such service.
Posted by Shingo at 08/27/2009 @ 10:50pm
The difference is in how our economy operates today vs 1942, and until Obama, we have not had a president who viewed taxpayers as pawns.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 12:40pm
Bush certainly viewed taxpayers as pawns. He offered tax break for the rich and only the rich.
Furthermore, there is no point blaming the Democrats for the abolotion of the draft. If it was such bad idea, then why didn't the Republican's reinstate it? I agree we shoudl have a draft, because that way, we would have fewer wars.
Now here comes the mother of all delusional statements:
"Nor were higher taxes necessary. Until the latest recession hit, we were well on the way to being back in a state of surplus, all with TAXCUTS in place."
For the sake of educating our viullage iodiot, even before the recession hit, we were over a trillion in the red and Congress passed lawws raising our debt level twice over the space of Bush's administration.
Posted by Shingo at 08/27/2009 @ 10:55pm
"Bush certainly viewed taxpayers as pawns. He offered tax break for the rich and only the rich."
We ought to tax every citizen to the same degree, rather than make some individuals give up a greater percent of their income than others. It is irrational to punish those who are successful. The government should not treat its citizens differently on the basis of rewarding them for failure and punishing them for success. It should let the cards fall wherever they may.
Bush decided to punish the rich to a slightly lesser degree than the liberals. A "tax cut" would be making them pay less than everyone else. Even with this "cut", they paid far, FAR more than everyone else.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 11:53pm
Even with this "cut", they paid far, FAR more than everyone else.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 11:53pm
But they have always paid a smaller percentage of their income than everyone else and percentages are all that matters.
Posted by Shingo at 08/28/2009 @ 12:35am
So,, why are we there? I would love to sit in the audience of these "experts" just once or twice, and ask them some real questions. Why ARE we in Afghanistan? From everything I have read and learned,, we are there to control the flow of natural gas and oil out of the region through pipelines we hope to build. (Pepe Escobar writes authoritatively about this.) Trying to build one Afghan government in that "country" would be like trying to get all those 15 different tribes to go to the same church every Sunday! Nothing upsets me more than being lied to,, and golly,, it happens every day,,, especially when the "experts" stand up at the Brookings Institution and reveal their severely limited analytical abilities,, as well as their inability to lie very well. Experts,, who will never be on the ground there,, scare me much more than our most brainwashed and naive soldiers. The soldiers still have a chance to grow and learn,, but these "experts" have shot their wad. Sad really.
Posted by Sheabrown at 08/28/2009 @ 2:38pm
Cordesman, O'Hanlon and Kagan only rehashed agitprop handouts from McChystal as their judgement. Reidel was honest and analytic. Truth is we learned nothing from VN. From 1963 to 1967 our bombing turned SVN from 86% rural to 75% urban. But CORDS, in Hanoi's words, turned refugees into "petites bourgeoises," by developing urban economy. In Afghan War we used troops as spotters so B-52s blow away the one guy shooting at them from the hills. As in Iraq we went in intel blind, language deaf and culture dumb, shooting defensively to keep our casualties down and theirs up. We did little to create an urban economy. Galulla's 80% that non-military part of COIN our careerist generals disreagarded. Like VC from 1958 to 1964, Taliban grew in reaction to our blind firepower. We forget that after we invaded Afghanistan alQaeda Arabs left so we are killing Taliban only to decide who rules. McChrystal, like Petraeus in Iraq, has no strategy. So as soon as he got 20,000 troops he asked for another 12,000; so it goes until Obama sais "no more." Then McChrystal will blame defeat on Obama for refusing more troops. There is no global Jihad in South Asia. Just as Iraq's neighbors won't accept alQaeda, resulting in Shia-Sunni civil war when we leave, Shanghai Accord neighbors of Afghanistan won't allow Taliban takeover. Russia, China, Iran, India, Pakistan, other "-stans" will prevent Taliban takeover. Let's get out, letting crooked Kaezai Gov to deal with Ahanghai Accord and Taliban. The opium is more a Kabul Gov business than Taliban. If Arabs return the Shanghai Accord will make sure they won't stay. Hesitation now makes Bush's dumb war Obama's War. He'd do well not to treat Afghan War as an obligate inheritance from Bush. There are alternatives to current no point US static self-defense.
Posted by danielet at 08/28/2009 @ 4:57pm
If Afghanistan and associated adventures are viewed as a continuation of Desraeli's and Brzezhinsky's Great Game, the current apparent impasse is exactly the correct position to be in, for both political and strategic reasons. The 'New American Century" requires an unending maneuvering to maintain the illusion of stalemate with an implacable foe - straight out of "1984". The maintenance of a global military occupation is a lot easier to justify in such circumstances. An outright victory is just as undesirable for the reason that Afghanistan, like Georgia, is a dagger aimed at the heart of Russia (and China as well, wonder if they realize it). If you doubt this is the case explain why those insurgencies in the Caucaus, Tibet and Uighuristan are so lionized as paragons of virtue and democracy when a politic consistent with the above "panel" would require unequivocal condemnation and demonization of them. In fact, why are these caucasian terrorists so much more adept than their counterparts in Afghanistan? May it be they have a different source of funding?
It's pretty amazing that both Russia and China are acting so oblivious or nonchalant about this. Eventually, though, the stakes are bound to be raised.
Posted by guns4all at 08/28/2009 @ 6:27pm
Russia is an empire, as is China. naturally they face uprisings from freedom fighters/terrorists.
air war against civilians is also terrorism, as that war terrorizes the population.
hence the case can be made that the US is the world's largest and most lethal terrorist organization.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/29/2009 @ 10:15am
Furthermore, there is no point blaming the Democrats for the abolotion of the draft.
especially since Nixon abolished the draft.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/31/2009 @ 2:17pm