Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditOne of the most shocking things about General Stan McChrystal's leaked "Commander's Initial Assessment" about the war in Afghanistan is how bluntly he admits that the US occupation authorities, ISAF (the NATO International Security Assistance Force), and Centcom know little about the country they've invaded.
You'd think that, as the war in Afghanistan enters its ninth year, we'd know a little about the place. But no. As McChrystal writes (page 2-4):
"ISAF has not sufficiently studied Afghanistan's peoples, whose needs, identities, and grievances vary from province to province and from valley to valley."
That's a stunner. ISAF has "not sufficiently studied" the very country its occupying? After eight years? Read on (page 2-5):
"For this strategy to succeed, ISAF leaders must redouble efforts to understand the social and political dynamics [of] all regions of the country."
He goes on (page 2-10):
"Afghan social, political, economic, and cultural affairs are complex and poorly understood. ISAF does not sufficiently appreciate the dynamics in local communities, nor how the insurgency, corruption, incompetent officials, power-brokers, and criminality all combine to affect the Afghan population."
It's incredibly arrogant that after so long the United States argues that it knows what to do in Afghanistan while, at the same time, admitting in public that it has barely the faintest idea about the country really works.
In today's Wall Street Journal, there is news that Centcom is setting up (for the first time) an intelligence shop to focus on Afghanistan. The new center, says the Journal, is "designed to help troops deepen their intelligence about the country's complex political and tribal dynamics." And it reports:
"The new intelligence center is meant to provide military and civilian officials in Afghanistan with detailed analysis of the country's tribal, political and religious dynamics. The center, at Central Command's Florida headquarters, employs about 150 troops, contractors and civilian officials."
So, where is this vaunted new "Pakistan-Afghanistan Coordination Cell"? In Tampa, Florida! I'm sure that's an excellent place to study Afghanistan.
Earlier this year, I interviewed one of the few people who actually seems to have a grasp of the complex dynamics of tribes, subtribes and clans in Afghanistan. That's Seth Jones, a RAND Corporation specialist whose new book, In the Graveyard of Empires, is a must-read, even if you don't agree with all of his conclusions. In the interview, I spoke to Jones about whether the US military and the intelligence community have a good map of the tribes and their networks. Here's that exchange:
Q. Does the United States have a map of these tribes?A. No.
Q. They don't?
A. There are maps, but especially down south, very serious micro-level maps that get down to sub-tribes and clans, relationships with criminal organizations, no. That's being built at the moment....
Q. So why is it seven years into this ….?
A. Well in some areas, like Assadabad, the PRT's [Provincial Reconstruction Teams] are there….
Q. But without this map…
A. You can't do anything we've talked about. At the very least, linking up with local Afghans. The NDS, Afghanistan's intelligence service, the ministry of interior, especially when you get into the provinces, there's an NDS chief for the province, and he's got a range of NDS operatives, they'll definitely know, because they're from the province. It also means linking up with the Afghan government, especially the intelligence service.
Q. So they're local intelligence people are actually rooted in the area and they know who these people are?
A. Absolutely!
Q. So we have to trust them. We can't reconstruct a map if they've got one.
A. Yes. That is exactly what we have to do. The United States isn't in all areas. There are some United States forces in and around Qalat, along the ring road. But for the most part, in the south, in Kandahar, some Canadian forces, in Helmand, mostly British, but they're in the northern parts. So huge chunks of Farah, of Helmand, of Kandahar, northern Zabul, chunks of Uruzgan: no forces. No mapping. And this is the heart of the insurgency. So now we're sending some Marines down south. And we'll start mapping. Seven years into the insurgency.
Now, it's eight years and counting.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Same goes for Iran.
http://tinyurl.com/yc6skaj
Conservatives on this blog might better like this kind of analysis on Iran.
http://tinyurl.com/2w4apm
Posted by srjenkins at 10/06/2009 @ 10:09am
>>>"ISAF has not sufficiently studied Afghanistan's peoples, whose needs, identities, and grievances vary from province to province and from valley to valley."<<<
OK....that was Bush.
Now Obama has a chance to get this right. Isn't getting it right more important than just giving up because you got it wrong for 8 years under Bush?
Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2009 @ 10:48am
The biggest problem in "mapping" Afghanistan is that requisites of the indigenous peoples may differ from ours. An old book referred to the "labyrinthine bureaucracy" of that country. Encountering courtesy & solicitousness in an official may not result in obtaining what is wanted on schedule. Time, apparently, is apprehended much differently in that distant land.
And in an occupation, time is not an ally.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/06/2009 @ 11:13am
But I thought McChrystal knew EVERYTHING about Afghanistan and if only Obama would listen to him, we'd get "victory" "soon"???!??!!!!??
Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 11:39am
But I thought McChrystal knew EVERYTHING about Afghanistan and if only Obama would listen to him, we'd get "victory" "soon"???!??!!!!??
Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 11:39am
Who made that claim? document it Mask. provide a link.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 12:07pm
I think that what we don't understand about Afghanistan is very similar to what we didn't understand about Iraq. We're clueless about cultures who don't respond to mass market advertising and don't give a shit about Lindsay Lohan or the octomom. I mean, good lord. They just want food and shelter.
So our answer is to just automate the bombing by drone, etc. When even our war machine isn't functioning like it used to we're really screwed.
Get out now - and use the money for health care for all.
Ooops! Now the good weapons manufacturers from Raytheon will feel threatened. That's what we seem to sell the most of these days.
Besides 'Depends'.
Posted by ficheye at 10/06/2009 @ 12:33pm
Well fisheye those depends will come in handy when the s#$t hits the you know.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/06/2009 @ 12:45pm
Q. "Now Obama has a chance to get this right. Isn't getting it right more important than just giving up because you got it wrong for 8 years under Bush?" ~Metteyya.
A. The problem here is that "getting it right" in even the most limited sense is almost certainly a bridge too far.
What are the minimal objectives in Afghanistan? Probably to install an effective central government that can provide badly needed long term infrastructural support to the lion's share of a vast, rugged and tribally micro-fractured country (see William Polk's Nation cover piece). The U.S. --even with the full support of the international community--can barely begin to make a dent in what is needed in this regard.
If I thought our motives were pure, I'd still be hard pressed to back such a monstrous undertaking. Plug in the reality of U.S. foreign policy increasingly dominated by our "defense" department with its miniscule ability to implement genuine humanitarian intervention and, well, you get the dismal picture.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/06/2009 @ 1:22pm
Here's a letter to Newsweek last week that (unsurprisingly) went unpublished:
"Know thy enemy", says Jon Meacham, as General McChrystal appears on 60 Minutes for a glamour shoot --ditto for Ryan Crocker in Newsweek recently. Toss in the menacing Taliban Newsweek cover and the picture is high def.
America will continue to occupy Afghanistan because powerful concerns have decreed it. Meanwhile, in intelligent-world we'd have already implemented a Manhattan Project for renewable energy, lifted our lead boot from inherently volatile lands, and negotiated a global nuclear disarmament process across the board [including Israeli nukes, of course]. It seems, to "know thyself" is the perhaps far more important than "knowing thy enemy" --if we could only tell them apart.
End quote.
Note: object in [brackets], above, was not included in letter to Newsweek, of course. We know that stuff doesn't get published here in America.
This is our reality, folks. We don't have anything approaching a meaningful democracy today. We've been in decline at least since Eisenhower's famous farewell address warning of the military industrial [academic] complex –"academic" was in his original iteration and was subsequently dropped for the speech.
Business schools teach "capture theory" as the methods by which corporations can undermine the regulatory apparatus and bring them to heal. I believe their success (see recent history including the bank bailouts) has proven to be overwhelming –to the detriment of us all.
I think it's quite safe to say we are at or near the point of no return if we truly wish to recover our republic. I sincerely hope we figure out how to pull the ripcord soon.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/06/2009 @ 1:22pm
assuming mccrystal's assesment is accurate (no reason not to), this is all the more reason to continue USA presence in af-pak. its a chance to get it right, the last 9 years notwithstanding.
great harm came to our shores from this land. it may be unconquerable. our military presence will keep our enemy off balance and fighting for his own homeland, rather than aiding and abetting plots against ours.
for better our worse, if we are not willing to do total war in afghanistan, the next best thing for our own land is to put our professional soldiers in harm's way on the bad guy's soil.
an added benefit is it keeps iran a little spooked knowing we have troops on either side of them
nobody does terror better than a well equipped, motivated western military force.
Posted by mikeflynn at 10/06/2009 @ 1:23pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 12:07pm
So McChrystal could be wrong about Afghanistan?
(eventually, my link...will be you)
Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 1:25pm
The first post here by SR Jenkins deserves expansion:
From Juan Cole's indispensible Informed Comment blog:
TOP THINGS YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT IRAN THAT ARE NOT TRUE
Belief: Iran is aggressive and has threatened to attack Israel, its neighbors or the US
Reality: Iran has not launched an aggressive war in modern history (unlike the US or Israel), and its leaders have a doctrine of "no first strike." This is true of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, as well as of Revolutionary Guards commanders.
Belief: Iran is a militarized society bristling with dangerous weapons and a growing threat to world peace.
Reality: Iran's military budget is a little over $6 billion annually. Sweden, Singapore and Greece all have larger military budgets. Moreover, Iran is a country of 70 million, so that its per capita spending on defense is tiny compared to these others, since they are much smaller countries with regard to population. Iran spends less per capita on its military than any other country in the Persian Gulf region with the exception of the United Arab Emirates.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/06/2009 @ 1:40pm
Belief: Iran has threatened to attack Israel militarily and to "wipe it off the map."
Reality: No Iranian leader in the executive has threatened an aggressive act of war on Israel, since this would contradict the doctrine of 'no first strike' to which the country has adhered. The Iranian president has explicitly said that Iran is not a threat to any country, including Israel.
Belief: But didn't President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threaten to 'wipe Israel off the map?'
Reality: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did quote Ayatollah Khomeini to the effect that "this Occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" (in rezhim-e eshghalgar-i Qods bayad as safheh-e ruzgar mahv shavad). This was not a pledge to roll tanks and invade or to launch missiles, however. It is the expression of a hope that the regime will collapse, just as the Soviet Union did. It is not a threat to kill anyone at all.
Belief: But aren't Iranians Holocaust deniers?
Actuality: Some are, some aren't. Former president Mohammad Khatami has castigated Ahmadinejad for questioning the full extent of the Holocaust, which he called "the crime of Nazism." Many educated Iranians in the regime are perfectly aware of the horrors of the Holocaust. In any case, despite what propagandists imply, neither Holocaust denial (as wicked as that is) nor calling Israel names is the same thing as pledging to attack it militarily.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/06/2009 @ 1:40pm
"nobody does terror better than a well equipped, motivated western military force."
Posted by mikeflynn at 1:23pm
Indisputably.
Are you a writer for Monty Python perhaps?
Let's see if "Afpak" floats shant we?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/06/2009 @ 1:43pm
So McChrystal could be wrong about Afghanistan?
(eventually, my link...will be you)
Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 1:25pm
You didn't answer the question. Who said that McChrystal knows EVERYTHING about Afghanistan?
Which is also not the same as saying he could be wrong about Afghanistan
Please cite ANY source who knows EVERYTHING about Afghanistan?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 1:48pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/06/2009 @ 1:40pm
Nicely done.
Of course, some conservatives here will take issue with what Ahmadinejad actually said, you can be sure of that.
But this is a very nice factual post. It's appreciated.
Posted by ficheye at 10/06/2009 @ 1:58pm
b_kool_66. big fan of M.P. recently viewed a bunch of episodes. can't recall the "western military force" reference? i have a visual image of the scottish paratroops in training. probably should have said military FARCE. shant i?
Posted by mikeflynn at 10/06/2009 @ 2:05pm
'Sup Fich?!
Thanks for the props, dude.
I dug your comment as well:
"We're clueless about cultures who don't respond to mass market advertising and don't give a shit about Lindsay Lohan or the octomom. I mean, good lord. They just want food and shelter. So our answer is to just automate the bombing by drone, etc.
When even our war machine isn't functioning like it used to we're really screwed."
Right on. F&#!ing war machine just aint what it used to be.
We need a stimulus package for our ailing military, and we need it NOW, dammit.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/06/2009 @ 2:12pm
Eisenhower's famous farewell address warning of the military industrial [academic] complex –"academic" was in his original iteration and was subsequently dropped for the speech.
you are mistaken, B. the original speech included congress, as in congressional military industrial complex. it was correct then, and is more so now.
stop kicking academia, chumps, they are your betters.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/06/2009 @ 2:32pm
Eisenhower's famous farewell address warning of the military industrial [academic] complex –"academic" was in his original iteration and was subsequently dropped for the speech.
you are mistaken, B. the original speech included congress, as in congressional military industrial complex. it was correct then, and is more so now.
stop kicking academia, chumps, they are your betters.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/06/2009 @ 2:33pm
for better our worse, if we are not willing to do total war in afghanistan, the next best thing for our own land is to put our professional soldiers in harm's way on the bad guy's soil.
the sitting duck school of war fare.
roll over napoleon and tell von Clausewitz the news.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/06/2009 @ 2:36pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 1:48pm
You will, Larry.
Or tell me that Stanley McChrystal can be WRONG about the situation in Afghanistan???
Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 2:41pm
Heres what the left always leaves out when mentioning Ike's farewell address
<A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations -- corporations.
Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.>
continued with the other danger that Ike believed was equal to the caution on defense spending.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 2:42pm
Ike's farewell address continued
<Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society>
http://tinyurl.com/97d9d
Ike warned of an equal danger from expanding govt contracts in the college research area.
But the left who calls for even more govt spending at College research centers has no complaints about that danger Ike cited, nor do they ever quote it.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 2:46pm
Reality: Iran has not launched an aggressive war in modern history (unlike the US or Israel) Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/06/2009 @ 1:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You speak the truth, but not the whole truth. Iran provides weapons, money and training to surrogats like Hezbollah, Hamas and certain Iraqi Shiites who engage in aggressive militant action. Clean hands drenched in blood.
Posted by gren at 10/06/2009 @ 2:48pm
"you are mistaken, B. the original speech included congress, as in congressional military industrial complex....."
Posted by emile duBois at 2:33pm
I believe the actual facts around this issue are a bit more complex than most of us are aware, including yourself Emile.
In any case, the information I refer to derived from the --must see, I think-- interview this past weekend on Book TV of Chris Hedges by Ron Suskind in reference to Hedges' stellar new book, "Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy, and the Triumph of Spectacle".
I'm attempting to track down, and get a hold of a copy as we speak.
Peace out, ~B
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/06/2009 @ 2:54pm
Posted by antisocialist at 2:42pm
Thanks for the (much better average than your average) post, Larry.
Reading that snippet of Eisenhower, especially in reference to today's monstrous "defense" establishment should send a chill down all of our spines --from the "left" to the "right".
If most Americans were familiar with the content of Tim Weiner's "Legacy of Ashes" or William Blum's "Killing Hope" on the deepening debacle that is our CIA, or James Bamford's seminal reporting on the NSA in such works as "The Shadow Factory" or "Body of Secrets" the revolt that is probably required to save this nation from itself would much more likely be underway.
As it is, we are destined for a mega-disaster, in all probability, as the likely correction to this badly out of whack system.
Think of it as the vomitting before the recovery.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/06/2009 @ 3:08pm
Please cite ANY source who knows EVERYTHING about Afghanistan?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 1:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The Russians.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/06/2009 @ 3:13pm
Peace out, ~B Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/06/2009 @ 2:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I have seen this referred to many times in accepted sources. I have never seen the word academic in that speech, it is always congressional military industrial complex.
that is incidentally the only reading which makes sense.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/06/2009 @ 3:30pm
Think of it as the vomitting before the recovery.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/06/2009 @ 3:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Every Breath You Take"
Every breath you take Every move you make Every bond you break Every step you take I'll be watching you
Every single day Every word you say Every game you play Every night you stay I'll be watching you
O can't you see You belong to me......
Thanks Mr. Bamford.
And hey Verint - F__k you!
Posted by OneVote at 10/06/2009 @ 4:16pm
Posted by gren at 10/06/2009 @ 2:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Don't forget Israeli arms trade to China. (hint: Iran)
Thanks.
Posted by OneVote at 10/06/2009 @ 4:19pm
Posted by emile duBois at 10/06/2009 @ 2:32pm
You want to argue that academia hasn't been captured by the military industrial complex?
That's funny. The comedy around here is fantastic.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/06/2009 @ 4:21pm
Mr. Dryfuss seemingly likes using a "red herring" technique of stirring up dissention, misunderstanding, and playing to the misguided proclivities of leftist to slander or misjudge the understanding and commitment of our military forces. But, what else would one expect from those that hate our nation?
Maybe he should try supporting them by at least reading the "ISAF commanders counterinsurgency guidence" then he could fill in the blanks of areas where he feels that is a need for improvement?
Just like the Holy Bible out of context reading serves no one except selfcentered intrest!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/06/2009 @ 5:19pm
But, what else would one expect from those that hate our nation?
Posted by BigPasture at 10/06/2009 @ 5:19pm
You criticize our C in C, regularly, in a TIME OF WAR!!!
Why do you hate the troops?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/06/2009 @ 5:28pm
You speak the truth, but not the whole truth. Iran provides weapons, money and training to surrogats like Hezbollah, Hamas and certain Iraqi Shiites who engage in aggressive militant action. Clean hands drenched in blood.
Posted by gren at 10/06/2009 @ 2:48pm
Hezbollah and Hamas are not Iranian surrogates. They are both entities that were created as a consequence of Israeli policy. Hamas was actualyl created by Israel, whereas Hezbollah was formed to resit Israel's 18 year occupation of Lebanon.
As for Shiites in Iraq, less that 1% of weapons seized came from Iran, and even then, there was no proof that those weapons were provided by the Iranian government.
As for arms, Iran slls weapons just like we do. Hezbollah are known to use m16 semi automatics, so does that mean the US support Hezbollah?
Posted by Shingo at 10/06/2009 @ 5:54pm
Mr. Dryfuss seemingly likes using a "red herring" technique of stirring up dissention, misunderstanding, and playing to the misguided proclivities of leftist to slander or misjudge
Posted by BigPasture at 10/06/2009 @ 5:19pm
Wrong BigPasture. He points out the contradiction that the man who believes he has the answer to fix Afghanistan now admits he doesn't understand Afghanistan, and thus could not possibly know how to fix the problem.
You wingnuts are such hypocrites. Bush slanders the CIA, but when the Dems do it, it's an outrage. Bush ignores a dozen generals, which makes them betrayers, yet when Obama does it, he is ignoring the advice of the military.
"Just like the Holy Bible out of context reading serves no one except selfcentered intrest!"
That doesn't stop you wingnuts reading the Koran out of context does it?
Posted by Shingo at 10/06/2009 @ 6:00pm
This seems to be a rather familiar problem. In fact, has this country understood a single country that we've invaded since WWII? Not only does the military command not understand the country itself, the military at large has no clue as to what an effective counter-insurgency strategy would look like. And that's if you except the rationale for the war (and I don't).
What we know is damning. We know that the invasion was launched without attempts for extradition and with no Security Council authorization. We know we haven't had any success in 8 years. We know that the next escalation will negate Obama's limited withdrawal from Iraq and with it, any savings. And we certainly know that Karzai just won recent elections thanks to massive fraud and a pathetic voter turnout.
And yet, in spite of the fact that NATO had zero business invading in the first place, its considered capitulation by Obama if he fails to escalate the war a sufficient number of times.
Posted by nkurland at 10/06/2009 @ 8:59pm
We know that the invasion was launched without attempts for extradition and with no Security Council authorization.
Posted by nkurland at 10/06/2009 @ 8:59pm
Either you make up these responses or you just don't know international law.
The US did not require a UN authorization but they did have it.
Resolutions 1373, 1378, 1386
http://tinyurl.com/y8bwsyv
http://tinyurl.com/ybsg879
http://tinyurl.com/y9jfltz
Article 51 of the UN Charter recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. It states:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.>
And the US did demand that the Taliban turn over Bin Laden. Where were you? It was on nightly tv.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 9:31pm
And the US did demand that the Taliban turn over Bin Laden. Where were you? It was on nightly tv.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 9:31pm
The Taliban agreed to hand over Bin Laden in return for evidence of Bin Laden's complicity in the 911 attacks. The Bush administration refused.
Posted by Shingo at 10/06/2009 @ 9:45pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 9:31pm
None of those resolutions authorized the NATO invasion. And there is this thing called Article 44 of the exact same UN Charter which requires Security Council authorization. The U.S. itself didn't even issue a declaration of war. And we were attacked by Al Qaeda, that's a non-state actor.
And quite frankly, making speeches where we demand the Taliban hand over Bin Laden is quite different from engaging in the actual process of extradition
Posted by nkurland at 10/06/2009 @ 9:47pm
Shingo, there is nothing out of context in critisisms of the Koran. It is a semi-literate collection of plagirisms assembled by mass-killing jihadists intermixed with hysterical anti-semitic and woman-hating rants and calls for genocide. There is no other way to interpret it. It is explicit. Practically every page features quotes of this kind. Likewise, you cannot take quotes from Mein Kampf "out of context". Muhammad lived his life according to these standards and values; he was a terrorist and a jihadist and a mass murderer and a Jew killer and a rapist and a sadist and a woman-beater and a slave owner AND a child molester.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 9:56pm
The Taliban actually repeatedly refused outright to hand over bin Laden. It only offered to hand him over to a third-world country sympathetic to him in order to try and likely find him innocent after we started bombing them. However, it threatened US with noncompliance with even this if we didn't first meet certain conditions THEY set for US (namely, proof that they analyzed and THEY deemed "convincing" that bin Laden was guilty). Appeasing them would have been unneccessary, evil, self-destructive, embarrassing, shameful, disgraceful, and cowardly. The Taliban also harbored tens of thousands of terrorists and several dozen internationally renowned terror training camps. We had no choice but to destroy their evil genocidal concentration camp of a state in order to make clear, for the sake of our national security, that the Muslim world was wrong to judge us a "paper tiger".
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 10:12pm
What is it that is meant by "...we are occupying..." ? To occupy this particular territory would require upwards of at least one million armed Americans, The only thing a soldier today actually occupies is the dirt he's standing on, and that is a pretty shaky proposition at that.
Posted by tucanofulano at 10/06/2009 @ 10:25pm
"McChrystal Admits: We Don't Understand the Afghans"
why, of course not.
you don't even understand your largest trading partner.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/06/2009 @ 10:31pm
None of those resolutions authorized the NATO invasion. And there is this thing called Article 44 of the exact same UN Charter which requires Security Council authorization. The U.S. itself didn't even issue a declaration of war. And we were attacked by Al Qaeda, that's a non-state actor.
And quite frankly, making speeches where we demand the Taliban hand over Bin Laden is quite different from engaging in the actual process of extradition
Posted by nkurland at 10/06/2009 @ 9:47pm
there is no requirement for a nation to go to the UN for an authorization in self defense.
Secondly, the US like most nations reserves the right to defend itself as a sovereign nation without the UN or any other international body. That is unlikely (hopefully) to ever change.
Face it, you simply dislike this country and refuse to acknowledge the right of a nation to defend itself.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 10:37pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 10:12pm
The Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over to an independent tribunal, not some unspecified "third world country sympathetic to him"
Posted by nkurland at 10/06/2009 @ 10:42pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 10:12pm
The Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over to an independent tribunal, not some unspecified "third world country sympathetic to him"
Posted by nkurland at 10/06/2009 @ 10:42pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 10:37pm
Can you point to where the Taliban attacked the United States? Because I missed that.
Also, let's imagine the Christian Identity Movement or some other ideological group in the United states manages to attack the great Wall of China and kill 5,000 Chinese people in the process. According to your view, do the Chinese have the right to attack the United States in order to get this group and bring them to justice?
Posted by srjenkins at 10/06/2009 @ 10:47pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 10:37pm
Read article 44, it explicitly requires Security Council authorization. In fact, read the entire goddamn charter. It sets forth two requirements for going to war, namely that its in self defense and authorized by the UN Security Council. The two conditions are interdependent. I'm not sure if you read past the first sentence of Article 51 because there's another two-thirds of the article that state:
Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
This means the Security Council holds the authority to determine whether or not the action is in self-defense. And once again, Al Qaeda is a non-state actor.
Posted by nkurland at 10/06/2009 @ 10:50pm
Posted by nkurland at 10/06/2009 @ 9:47pm
Umm, hate to be siding with antisocialist on anything, but there's a reason why they call it NATO rather than a UN Security Force.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 9:56pm
"Muhammad lived his life according to these standards and values; he was a terrorist and a jihadist and a mass murderer and a Jew killer and a rapist and a sadist and a woman-beater and a slave owner AND a child molester."
I can think of no better example of the pathology of right wing thinking than this quote. Thank you for providing it.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 9:56pm
I look forward to reading your criticisms of the literary value of the Bible and the moral problems of its main characters.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/06/2009 @ 10:52pm
Face it, you simply dislike this country and refuse to acknowledge the right of a nation to defend itself.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 10:37pm
Provide the proof, please.
Posted by nkurland at 10/06/2009 @ 10:54pm
Shingo, there is nothing out of context in critisisms of the Koran.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 9:56pm
Stop lying rightwingnutcase.
Only last week, I pointed you to corrections to the context of the quotes you have selected.
":It is a semi-literate collection of plagirisms assembled by mass-killing jihadists intermixed with hysterical anti-semitic and woman-hating rants and calls for genocide."
The exact same thing can be said about the Bible. in fact, I attended a talk by your hero, Christopher Hitchens, on the weekend, where described Moses and Arbaham as genocidal maniacs.
Posted by Shingo at 10/06/2009 @ 10:59pm
You criticize our C in C, regularly, in a TIME OF WAR!!!
Why do you hate the troops?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/06/2009 @ 5:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The C in C is NOT making the necessary timely command decisions, not unlike M.Gen Lucus made at Anzio, and that hesitation will result in the needless loss of life of even more servicemen just as it did then and is happening now!
While he hesitates over 51 more American servicemen have died! The enemy with full knowledge of his seeming hesitation to commit more troops is taking full advantage by ramping up attacks in the hope casting doubt on the wisdom of pursuing national and world security goals agains the taliban and Al Queada.
The fluid Afghan tribes cast their lots with whomever they percieve as winners in an ethic of self preservation. The enemy clearly sees that timing and ramping up attacks is the best tactic they can use with our vascellating absentee from the field of battle leadership!
A C in C should rely on the experience and leadership of his handpicked General, not be consumed with issuing gag orders to them, and playing his own "war games" without experience!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/06/2009 @ 11:01pm
"Muhammad lived his life according to these standards and values; he was a terrorist and a jihadist and a mass murderer and a Jew killer and a rapist and a sadist and a woman-beater and a slave owner AND a child molester."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 9:56pm
Hitchens said the same thing about Moses and Abraham. They even preached that a women who is raped should be married to her rapist.
Posted by Shingo at 10/06/2009 @ 11:02pm
While he hesitates over 51 more American servicemen have died!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/06/2009 @ 11:01pm
4000 American servicemen died because Bush sent them to their deaths.
Posted by Shingo at 10/06/2009 @ 11:04pm
The Taliban actually repeatedly refused outright to hand over bin Laden. It only offered to hand him over to a third-world country sympathetic to him in order to try and likely find him innocent after we started bombing them.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 10:12pm
False on both counts. The Taliban offered to hand hm over in return for evidence of his complicity in 9/11, which was never produced.
Secondly, the Taliban mentioned nothing about handing him over to a third-world country sympathetic to him.
I challenge you to produce a new article (not from the weekly Standard) that proves your claim.
Posted by Shingo at 10/06/2009 @ 11:07pm
Like I said elsewhere, Obamanation is "channeling" LBJ and politicians who ran the vietnam war into the ground and he will ultimately snatch defeat from the jaws of victory just as politicians have done historically when they and not the military fight wars!
He will ultimately be the fool who tries to defeat terrorism by "committee"!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/06/2009 @ 11:08pm
Face it, you simply dislike this country and refuse to acknowledge the right of a nation to defend itself.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 10:37pm
Translation: I've lost the debate to someone smarter than me, so I'll go back to hiding behind the American flag and pretend I'm the patriot.
Posted by Shingo at 10/06/2009 @ 11:09pm
I agree that the Bible supports genocide, rape, torture, and slavery. At least it has some literary merit and some wisdom in some of its teachings, unlike the entirely and completely worthless, useless, wicked, and stupid Koran. I am an atheist and I'm sure National Review would call me a "radical secularist".
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 11:09pm
Like I said elsewhere, Obamanation is "channeling" LBJ and politicians who ran the vietnam war into the ground and he will ultimately snatch defeat from the jaws of victory just as politicians have done historically when they and not the military fight wars!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/06/2009 @ 11:08pm
If anyone snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, it was Bush who took his eye of Afghanistan to start an necessary and illegal war in Iraq. he even diverted $700 million from Afghanistan to ramp up the Iraq war.
Have you forgotten BigPasture? The Afghanistan war was supposed to have been won years ago.
Posted by Shingo at 10/06/2009 @ 11:12pm
At least it has some literary merit and some wisdom in some of its teachings, unlike the entirely and completely worthless, useless, wicked, and stupid Koran. I am an atheist and I'm sure National Review would call me a "radical secularist".
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 11:09pm
What literary merit does the Bible have? It's nothing but a complication of fairy tales handed down by word of mouth from illiterate people.
And what is genocide, rape, torture, and slavery if not completely worthless, useless, wicked, and stupid?
Posted by Shingo at 10/06/2009 @ 11:15pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 11:09pm
I think the phrase you are looking for is "religious bigot". I see a right wing religious bigot is no prettier than the left wing variety.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/06/2009 @ 11:16pm
The Taliban did offer to put him on trial in a third-world country if WE met the conditions THEY set for us. They said he should be tried "according to Islamic law". Asking me to find a news article in which the Taliban is quoted as explicitly admitting verbatim that it will only give up bin Laden to a country sympathetic to him where he might be found innocent (which would HAVE to be a possibility in a trial) only shows how naive you are. You may well be to the left of Jimmy Carter.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 11:23pm
The Bible teaches: "Love thy neighbor as thy self," "There is no free nor slave, no Jew nor Greek, no male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus," and "Love those who hate you, bless those who curse you," ect., so not all of its teachings are so completely and entirely wicked, stupid, and evil as the Koran.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 11:34pm
The Taliban did offer to put him on trial in a third-world country if WE met the conditions THEY set for us.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 11:23pm |
What 3rd world country and where is your source for this?
"Asking me to find a news article in which the Taliban is quoted as explicitly admitting verbatim that it will only give up bin Laden to a country sympathetic to him where he might be found innocent (which would HAVE to be a possibility in a trial) only shows how naive you are."
No itr shows that I know when you are lying.
The truth is that you don't have a source and are just making this up as you go along, which is your usual MO.
Your a liar and you just go exposed AGAIN. You'll learn.
Posted by Shingo at 10/06/2009 @ 11:39pm
The Bible teaches: "Love thy neighbor as thy self," "There is no free nor slave, no Jew nor Greek, no male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus," and "Love those who hate you, bless those who curse you," ect., so not all of its teachings are so completely and entirely wicked, stupid, and evil as the Koran.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 11:34pm
But didn't you just say you agreed that the Bible supports genocide, rape, torture, and slavery?
The Koran also teaches one to love others and respect them. In fact, it instructs you to forgive those who attack you if they stop.
It's the equivalent of offering the other cheek and forgiveness.
Posted by Shingo at 10/06/2009 @ 11:42pm
I do have a source, Shingo, just read the wikipedia article on the Taliban. They offered, just before the bombing, to "try bin Laden under Islamic law".
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 11:49pm
Posted by Shingo at 10/06/2009 @ 11:42pm
We both know what's going on here. He's confusing perversion of the Koran with the actual Koran as written. This happens with every single religion.
Posted by nkurland at 10/06/2009 @ 11:50pm
I do have a source, Shingo, just read the wikipedia article on the Taliban. They offered, just before the bombing, to "try bin Laden under Islamic law".
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 11:49pm
But you said they wanted to hand him to a 3rd world country. Which country was it, or are you changing your story?
Where is the wikipedia link and what news source does it refer to?
Posted by Shingo at 10/06/2009 @ 11:52pm
Yes, some passges in the Bible do support genocide and slavery. Why do you have to be so utterly clueless and stupid? These quotes are not contradictions of the above stance, they are a response to your own demand that I explain myself and defend my assertion that the Bible is of some literary merit, unlike the Koran.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 11:55pm
antisocialist already provided the link, and it isn't that hard to look up a wikipedia article.
They never explicitly stated where they planned to try bin Laden to my knowledge.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 11:58pm
Yes, some passges in the Bible do support genocide and slavery. Why do you have to be so utterly clueless and stupid? These quotes are not contradictions of the above stance, they are a response to your own demand that I explain myself and defend my assertion that the Bible is of some literary merit, unlike the Koran.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 11:55pm
How is the teaching of loving others an example of literary merit? It might be of moral merit, but there is nothing literary about it.
Furthermore, not only does the Koran teach similar principals, but it suffers from the fact that it has only recently been translated and messages often suffer under translation. So yes, it might sound awkward, but so do books translated from Russian.
Posted by Shingo at 10/06/2009 @ 11:59pm
Okay, moral merit, then. As I said, some of its teachings are not only not evil and wicked and useless and vile and stupid, but wise.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/07/2009 @ 12:03am
Bush Rejects Taliban Bin Laden Offer By Kathy Gannon Associated Press Writer Sunday, Oct. 14, 2001; 1:50 p.m. EDT
JALALABAD, Afghanistan –– A senior Taliban leader said Sunday that the Islamic militia would be willing to hand over Osama bin Laden to a third country if the United States halts the bombing of Afghanistan and provides evidence against him.
President Bush quickly rejected the offer.
--------------------------
Rightwingnutcase you should know by now Shingo is a waste of response time.
I see nothing he contributes to rational, logical, intelligent arguments except biased ad hominem attacks and a virulent anti semitism ! You are just feeding a carp bread.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/07/2009 @ 12:03am
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 11:58pm
Have you ever tried handing a professor a paper with Wikipedia as one of your main sources? They hate it, I know a few people who's grades were marked down because of it. You know why? Because it isn't a legitimate academic source.
Once again the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over to an independent tribunal. The record is unambiguous. And if according to your logic, they never explicitly stated where they were going to try Bin Laden that means you have no way of proving they planned to extradite him to a "third world country sympathetic to him" The entire argument is a logical fallacy.
Posted by nkurland at 10/07/2009 @ 12:05am
And actually I think loving your enemy is pathological amoral left-wing claptrap nonsense.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/07/2009 @ 12:05am
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 11:34pm
From the Quran: ""And mankind is naught but a single nation", "He deserves paradise who makes his companions laugh", "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors", "A kind word and the veiling of another's want is better than a charitable deed followed by hurt", etc.
Maybe you need to do a little more unbiased reading.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/07/2009 @ 12:06am
And actually I think loving your enemy is pathological amoral left-wing claptrap nonsense.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/07/2009 @ 12:05am
How can it be left wing, when the right wing evangelicals are the ones preaching it?
Posted by Shingo at 10/07/2009 @ 12:31am
Rightwingnutcase you should know by now Shingo is a waste of response time.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/07/2009 @ 12:03am
You never pass up an opportunity to soil yourself do you BigPasture? Rightwingnutcase said that the Taliban a) refused to hand Bin Laden over, when in fact they offered to hand him over if evidence was provided b) Rightwingnutcase then changed his mind and admitted that the Taliban did offer to hand OBLover, but only to a 3rd world country that was sympathetic to OBL.
Where in the AP article does it mention a 3rd world country sympathetic to OBL?
I know logic is not your strength and that you usually run away when it comes to debate, but give it your best shot.
And in case you forgot, I am Jewish, so the only anti-Semite here is you.
Posted by Shingo at 10/07/2009 @ 12:36am
Maybe you need to do a little more unbiased reading.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/07/2009 @ 12:06am
Unbiased reading for wingnuts is unfathomable.
Posted by Shingo at 10/07/2009 @ 12:38am
And in case you forgot, I am Jewish, so the only anti-Semite here is you.
Posted by Shingo at 10/07/2009 @ 12:36am | ignore this person | warn this person
Your self hate must consume a lot of your time unproductively!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/07/2009 @ 01:28am
Your self hate must consume a lot of your time unproductively! Posted by BigPasture at 10/07/2009 @ 01:28am
Dyslexics untie!
Did a neutron star collapse? This is unbelievable.
Reboot! Let's get back to the Afghans... and I don't mean some type of shawl.
Posted by ficheye at 10/07/2009 @ 03:43am
Back to the important stuff..ACORN!!!!
Scofflaws...
Oh, wait, this isn't about ACORNs use of tax payer dollars, 53 million over 15 years...
"A major trouble spot is the business systems and procedures that companies use to bill the government. The numbers are eye-popping. Defense auditors have found at least $6 billion in questionable charges generated by sloppy accounting or, worse, contractors trying to bilk the military.
Based in Orange, Calif., Combat Support Associates is a largely unknown enterprise that, since 1999, has held an Army contract worth $2.7 billion to support U.S. troops at bases in Kuwait as they move in and out of Iraq. The company's responsibilities include vehicle maintenance, warehousing, computer repairs and post security."
Copmare and contrast the outrage over a group that gets 53m over 15 years to one that gets 2.7B over 10.
Who do the cons get pissed at? the one that helps poor people, not the one with sleepy guards watching over "the most dangerous".
sheep.
Herded into little flocks at the beck and call of media elites and celebrity entertainers that do NOTHING good for their country while at war.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/07/2009 @ 06:23am
"I agree that the Bible supports genocide, rape, torture, and slavery. "----Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 11:09pm
Vehement neo-con...and yet an atheist?
Christopher Hitchens?...Is that you????
Posted by Mask at 10/07/2009 @ 07:29am
Muhammad lived his life according to these standards and values; he was a terrorist and a jihadist and a mass murderer and a Jew killer and a rapist and a sadist and a woman-beater and a slave owner AND a child molester.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/06/2009 @ 9:56pm
hey, if michael vick can make a comeback.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/07/2009 @ 08:41am
The Taliban agreed to hand over Bin Laden in return for evidence of Bin Laden's complicity in the 911 attacks. The Bush administration refused.
Posted by Shingo at 10/06/2009 @ 9:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Do you think his Bin Laden's video tapes would have persuaded the Taliban? LOL
The Sudanese government similarly offered relief for Darfur if there evidence of the government's complicity in the holocaust there. Unfortunately the evidence proved to be insufficiently compelling.
Posted by gren at 10/07/2009 @ 08:46am
And in case you forgot, I am Jewish, so the only anti-Semite here is you.
Posted by Shingo at 10/07/2009 @ 12:36am | ignore this person | warn this person
Your repeated appeals to your jewishness in support of your raging and virulent anti-Zionism, begs the question. When your posts about Israel and Zionists are uniformly undistinquishable from those of anti-semites, your posts are fairly subject to the charge of reflecting anti-semitic biases even if you personally are not (anti-semitic). It is not the fact or passion of your criticism of Israel and Zionists that raise this issue, but rather it is the ugly hatefulness and prejudicial broad brush strokes of your absolute and scathing condemnations which your "jewishness" cannot defend or excuse.
Posted by gren at 10/07/2009 @ 08:56am
half of con posts are" you libs hate america".
it's a tired meme. it's what they say because any kind of rational response is beyond their talents.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/07/2009 @ 09:01am
In the U.S. approach to neutralizing a guerilla insurgency, the parallel between the period 1953 and 1963 in a place called Vietnam with 2001 to 2009 in a place called Afghanistan are striking. In both instances the U.S. government lacked true insight into the cultures they sought to destroy. From 1963 (with the first major surges...what we then called escalations) until April 30, 1975 the U.S. built on their ignorance and tried to bomb the Vietnamese back to the stone age. It didn't work. I suspect they are about to repeat this in Afghanistan. It won't work.
Posted by Masaniello at 10/07/2009 @ 09:19am
Posted by Masaniello at 10/07/2009 @ 09:19am
And 20 years from now, as with Vietnam, same "We can't allow the Taliban to control Afghanistan" Right...
will be free trader Right who will want to buy products made cheaply in Kabul.
www.usvtc.org
Posted by Mask at 10/07/2009 @ 09:42am
Dreyfuss >> We Don't Understand the Afghans <<
Hell, as Katrina writes, Americans are not understood in America.
But anyway, so what if we don't understand the Afghans. Did we understand the Germans or the Japanese in WWII?
The issue is our understanding of why we are in Afghanistan.
Do we understand that this is a political war which the Left deemed the good war and demanded we fight.
As Fouad Ajami has said, it was "the club with which the Iraq war was battered."
It was how Obama replied after his claims that Iraq was unwinnable and the Surge would make matters worse made a fool of him.
Obama criticized the Republicans for denying Afghanistan the resources it needed and for reducing it to a holding action. He promised to win it.
It turns out that Bush understood perfectly that Afghanistan needed to be neglected. Obama understood that he needed to sound tough after sounding silly on Iraq. That is why our wheels are spinning in Afghanistan. Obama stemmed on the gas without knowing where he was going.
The country needs to understand that we are in this fix because Obama used the war to serve his political fortunes. That is why men are dying and billions of dollars are being pissed away. If ever a man created a war to serve himself it is Obama in Afghanistan.
That was not true for Nixon who got us out of Vietnam, or for Johnson and JFK who got us in. Nor was it true for Truman who fought Korea. The Yellow Press urged on the Spanish American war for the sake of circulation. But never has an American war been fought for the sake of the career of one politician.
That is one first for which Obama will be remembered.
Posted by Pirovano at 10/07/2009 @ 10:42am
Dreyfuss >> We Don't Understand the Afghans <<
Hell, as Katrina writes, Americans are not understood in America.
But anyway, so what if we don't understand the Afghans. Did we understand the Germans or the Japanese in WWII?
The issue is our understanding of why we are in Afghanistan.
Do we understand that this is a political war which the Left deemed the good war and demanded we fight.
As Fouad Ajami has said, it was "the club with which the Iraq war was battered."
It was how Obama replied after his claims that Iraq was unwinnable and the Surge would make matters worse made a fool of him.
Obama criticized the Republicans for denying Afghanistan the resources it needed and for reducing it to a holding action. He promised to win it.
It turns out that Bush understood perfectly that Afghanistan needed to be neglected. Obama understood that he needed to sound tough after sounding silly on Iraq. That is why our wheels are spinning in Afghanistan. Obama stemmed on the gas without knowing where he was going.
The country needs to understand that we are in this fix because Obama used the war to serve his political fortunes. That is why men are dying and billions of dollars are being pissed away. If ever a man created a war to serve himself it is Obama in Afghanistan.
That was not true for Nixon who got us out of Vietnam, or for Johnson and JFK who got us in. Nor was it true for Truman who fought Korea. The Yellow Press urged on the Spanish American war for the sake of circulation. But never has an American war been fought for the sake of the career of one politician.
That is one first for which Obama will be remembered.
Posted by Pirovano at 10/07/2009 @ 10:44am
Face it, you simply dislike this country and refuse to acknowledge the right of a nation to defend itself.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 10:37pm
Provide the proof, please.
Posted by nkurland at 10/06/2009 @ 10:54pm
Surrendering sovereignty of the nation to an international body for starters.
Finding fault with the US instead of the terrorists.
BTW your question on the Taliban attacking us: Partnership with Bin Laden
November 2001 NY Times
<Sometime in the last year, Mr. bin Laden swore ''bayat,'' an Islamic oath of fealty, to Mullah Omar. By January of this year, at the wedding of one of his sons, the terrorist leader began to call Mullah Omar the caliph.
In return, the Taliban leader provided a base and protection for Al Qaeda, Mr. bin Laden's organization, and assented as Mr. bin Laden sent out videotapes calling on Muslims worldwide to commit their sons and their money to the terrorist camps he established in the remote deserts and mountains of Afghanistan.
Under the tutelage of his guest, Mullah Omar began to see his goal as more than the liberation of Afghanistan and he progressively signed on to the idea of a worldwide jihad against the United States.>
http://tinyurl.com/c8oqqc
Posted by antisocialist at 10/07/2009 @ 11:59am
But anyway, so what if we don't understand the Afghans. Did we understand the Germans or the Japanese in WWII?
Posted by Pirovano at 10/07/2009 @ 10:44am
Ok, just stop right there. There is absolutely no level on which these two wars match up. When we fought the Germans we fought a conventional army that relied on conscription. The strategy was pretty simple: the Allies attacked from 3 different directions, forcing the Germans to back themselves into a corner (i.e, Berlin). The insurgency in Afghanistan relies on popular support, meaning that they live among the people in the villages and there are no fixed bases. This necessitates an understanding of the cultural and geography of the country. And that's only the strategic differences.
And quite frankly, its a joke to say Obama is the first to conduct a war for the sake of his career. The entire reason LBJ invaded Vietnam was because of the memory of what happened to Truman after his "loss of China." Nixon was even worse.
Obama has been entirely too eager to escalate. His first escalation was being drawn up even before he took office
Posted by nkurland at 10/07/2009 @ 12:14pm
you are certainly correct nkurland, and not the first time.
apropos understanding the Germans, we understood them very well. consider the fact that the Germans were and are the number one immigrant group in the land. more people here of German ancestry than any other.
Piravano is an apparatchik, not much intelligence, and no command of facts, he's just winging it. a right wing-ing mouth piece.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/07/2009 @ 12:26pm
he is however half right in this instance. we did not understand the Japanese at all.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/07/2009 @ 12:27pm
Surrendering sovereignty of the nation to an international body for starters.
Finding fault with the US instead of the terrorists.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/07/2009 @ 11:59am
Let's ignore for a minute that this is entirely subjective. At first, your argument was that under Article 51 Security Council authorization wasn't required. After I've pointed out that not only Article 51, but also Article 44 stipulate Security Council authorization, I'm "anti-American" for "surrendering sovereignty" to an "international body." Essentially the first line of defense was ineffective so the tactic is now to jump over to ad-hominem attacks. Your argument has zero logical consistency.
Posted by nkurland at 10/07/2009 @ 12:34pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/07/2009 @ 11:59am
The article fails to establish a Taliban role in the planning of September 11. Even so, the logic of the invasion only holds up if you accept the logic of the Bush Doctrine.
It turns out that the logic of the Doctrine was rejected at least twice. In November 2004 a UN High Level Panel on Threats Challenges and Change concluded that the conventional interpretation of Article 51 was sufficient and that force could only be used when authorized by the Security Council. And again at the UN World Summit in September 2005, the conclusion drawn was that: "the relevant provisions of the Charter are sufficient to address the range of threats to international peace and security"
Posted by nkurland at 10/07/2009 @ 12:44pm
Posted by emile duBois at 10/07/2009 @ 12:27pm
I agree, we didn't understand the Japanese. But the relevant point is that it wasn't necessary.
Posted by nkurland at 10/07/2009 @ 12:47pm
But the relevant point is that it wasn't necessary. Posted by nkurland at 10/07/2009 @ 12:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person
allow me to disagree. understanding the Japanese might have avoided dropping atomic bombs on helpless civilian populations.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/07/2009 @ 1:05pm
Posted by nkurland at 10/07/2009 @ 12:44pm
As I've said before, you need to learn about the US constitution.
Article VI says that the constitution has supremacy along with treaties. However as made clear in Missouri v Holland, SCOTUS accurately noted that treaties (and thus UN charters) cannot supercede the US constitution.
The right of self defense remains a self determined right by the US.
<Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power
A question growing out of the discussion above is whether the treaty power is bounded by constitutional limitations. By the supremacy clause, both statutes and treaties "are declared . . . to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other."332 As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both.
Controversy over the Holmes language apparently led Justice Black in Reid v. Covert339 to deny that the difference in language of the supremacy clause with regard to statutes and with regard to treaties was relevant to the status of treaties as inferior to the Constitution. "There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.>
http://tinyurl.com/2wlhpn
The US does not subordinate itself to the UN.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/07/2009 @ 1:26pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/07/2009 @ 1:26pm
Then why even argue that we were in compliance with the UN Charter?
Posted by nkurland at 10/07/2009 @ 2:04pm
And yes, that is technically correct. However, the Constitution supposedly trumps treaties because said treaties first need to be ratified.
Posted by nkurland at 10/07/2009 @ 2:08pm
...Surrendering sovereignty of the nation to an international body for starters...
Posted by antisocialist at 10/07/2009 @ 11:59am | ignore this person | warn this person
Kinda like using the failure to comply with U.N. Resolutions as a justification for unilaterally going to war.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/07/2009 @ 3:44pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/07/2009 @ 1:26pm
Then why even argue that we were in compliance with the UN Charter?
Posted by nkurland at 10/07/2009 @ 2:04pm
And yes, that is technically correct. However, the Constitution supposedly trumps treaties because said treaties first need to be ratified.
Posted by nkurland at 10/07/2009 @ 2:08pm
1. Because you said that we were in violation of the UN charter
2. That is wrong. As was stated in Article VI and validated by Missouri v Holland, Seery v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 601 (Court of Claims, 1955) and Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) all have emphasized that international law doesn't override or supercede the constitution.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/07/2009 @ 3:46pm
Did we understand the Germans or the Japanese in WWII?
Oh, we saw very well what Versailles did to Germany in the interwar period.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/07/2009 @ 3:46pm
In response to Shingo's above attempted "gotcha" moment, where he tries (hard) to find a contradiction in my words:
First, Shingo is lying when he says that I initially stated that the Taliban never offered to give up bin Laden. I actually stated: "The Taliban refused outright to hand over bin Laden several times...[it] only changed its tune after we started bombing," which is true. According to the above AP article, AFTER the bombing began, the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden to an unspecified "third country" to be tried (according to wikipedia) "under Islamic law," but threatened noncompliance unless we met the demands they set for us ("satisfactory" proof and an end to bombing). This would have done nothing about the tens of thousands of terrorists and several dozen internationally renowned terrorist training camps the Taliban harbored. If you find that deal satisfying, then that is your problem, not mine. Second, saying that the Taliban first refused and then changed their tune when they actually did do this as a matter of public record is not by any stretch of the imagination a contradiction on my part. Third, the fact that the unbiased AP article only discusses trying bin Laden in a "third country" "under Islamic law" and doesn't explicitly state that the country would be sympathetic to bin Laden does not "prove" that that is an unreasonable assertion, you literal-minded dimwitted innane and naive little twit.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/07/2009 @ 4:02pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/07/2009 @ 3:46pm
Again, the Constitution supercedes treaties because they need to be ratified by Congress and be ratified by Congress. We did both with the UN Charter. In fact, we drafted it.
Posted by nkurland at 10/07/2009 @ 4:12pm
Again, the Constitution supercedes treaties because they need to be ratified by Congress and be ratified by Congress. We did both with the UN Charter. In fact, we drafted it.
say whaaat?
Posted by emile duBois at 10/07/2009 @ 4:57pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/07/2009 @ 4:02pm
"First, Shingo is lying when he says that I initially stated that the Taliban never offered to give up bin Laden."
In your own words, you said the "The Taliban refused outright to hand over bin Laden several times"
It was only when I corrected you that you then admitted that they did offer to hand over Bin Laden in return for evidence implicating Bin laden in 911.
You then lied again by stating that the Taliban only offered to hand OBL to a third world country that was sympathetic to Bin Laden.
The AP article mentions nothing about that third country "Islamic law", so you lied a third time.
Sorry, but you have been exposed yet again as a liar and a fraud.
You'll learn.
Posted by Shingo at 10/07/2009 @ 5:30pm
The US does not subordinate itself to the UN.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/07/2009 @ 1:26pm
But the US insists that other countries, like Iran, do.
Posted by Shingo at 10/07/2009 @ 5:31pm
Then why even argue that we were in compliance with the UN Charter?
Posted by nkurland at 10/07/2009 @ 2:04pm
Game, Set and Match.
Posted by Shingo at 10/07/2009 @ 5:33pm
Your repeated appeals to your jewishness in support of your raging and virulent anti-Zionism, begs the question. When your posts about Israel and Zionists are uniformly undistinquishable from those of anti-semites, your posts are fairly subject to the charge of reflecting anti-semitic biases even if you personally are not (anti-semitic). It is not the fact or passion of your criticism of Israel and Zionists that raise this issue, but rather it is the ugly hatefulness and prejudicial broad brush strokes of your absolute and scathing condemnations which your "jewishness" cannot defend or excuse.
Posted by gren at 10/07/2009 @ 08:56am |
The first point is a predictably lame, straw man argument. The problem with anti-semites, xenophobes and biggots is that some of them are intelligent and seize on legitimate criticism to legitimize their biggotry.
The problem with this argument is that it cuts both ways. That's like arguing that posts from the right are indistinguishable from the KKK and xenophobes because they might agree on some points.
Your second point is a good one. I shouldn't be relying on my ethnicity or religious affiliations to immunize me from accusations of anti semtism any more than those who consider any and all criticism of Israel and Zionism as anti Semitic.
The fact is that Israel's defenders will insist on tying Israel and Israeli policies to Judaism and attack anyone who does not accept this and anti Semitic or self hating Jews, such a Goldstone. It is a vile and shameful association that is both losing it's effectiveness and being increasingly rejected among the Jewish community in the diaspora.
You will never find a derogatory comment of mine directed at Jewish people.
Posted by Shingo at 10/07/2009 @ 5:44pm
Just HOW stupid are you, Shingo? Are you pretending to be this dumb for laughs?
Yes, that quote is correct. The Taliban did refuse to hand over bin Laden initially. Read the post you quote from again. The VERY NEXT SENTENCE explicitly acknowledges that they changed their tune after we started bombing them. THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE OF.... THE SAME POST!!!! So, obviously, I didn't "admit" this in that post in response to YOUR response to and argument against it.
Then you say I lied about that Taliban quote because it wasn't mentioned in the two paragraphs of an AP article posted above. CAN YOU FUCKING READ?!?!?!? I explicitly stated multiple times just to avoid confusing your feeble intellect that the Taliban is quoted as offering to "try bin Laden under Islamic law" in the afore-mentioned wikipedia article. Look it up.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/07/2009 @ 7:07pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/07/2009 @ 7:07pm
Your admission that the Taliban offered to hand OBL over only came after you were prompted and thus, forced to back down from your original lie, or half truth.
And rightwingnutcase, wikipedia doesn't cut it. If it hasn't been reported, then it didn't happen. wikipedia is not a news source.
Swing and a miss. Sorry, but you remain a liar and a fraud.
You'll learn.
Posted by Shingo at 10/07/2009 @ 7:39pm
Shingo, you obviously failed to understand my post. Are you retarded?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/07/2009 @ 10:20pm
Shingo, you obviously failed to understand my post. Are you retarded?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/07/2009 @ 10:20pm
Rightwingnutcase, it's always easy to know when you've been caught lying because you resort to using personal insults against those who've exposed you as a liar and a fraud.
You'll learn.
Posted by Shingo at 10/07/2009 @ 10:38pm
they need to be ratified by Congress and be ratified by Congress.
ratified and then re-ratified, whattacountry.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/08/2009 @ 08:13am
You will never find a derogatory comment of mine directed at Jewish people.
Posted by Shingo at 10/07/2009 @ 5:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I appreciate your response. As you are aware, there are Jewish groups and NGOs like B'Tsellem, Peace Now, JStreet etc., which vigorously and rigorously defend Palestinian rights and ctriticize israeli positions and policies, but do so in the love of a righteous Israel and the hope of purifying Israel. (Grant me some poetic and prophetic-loke license here.) They do so without demonizing, and more importantly without illegitimizing, Israel and its supporters. My wish is that you, and all Jews and non-Jews from both the Left and Right, would be willing to sacrifice some ideological purity for the sake of evenhandedness and nuance in the pursuit of truth.
Posted by gren at 10/08/2009 @ 10:22am
You will never find a derogatory comment of mine directed at Jewish people.
Posted by Shingo at 10/07/2009 @ 5:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person
One other thought. For me, although i have no intention or desire to live in Israel, and never feel more like an American than when I am in Israel, nevertheless as a Jew I believe it would be insufferably painful for me if I had the misfortune to experience the loss of Jewish sovereignty in Israel. Nor do I want my children to have to deal with such an event.
That said, it does not and cannot justify anything Istrael does or doesn't do. But it does inform my relationship to Israel, and how I criticise it. Not with hate, no matter the depths of my disappointment and frustration, but rather with love, regardless of how undeserving Israel may be of it at any particular moment.
Posted by gren at 10/08/2009 @ 10:29am
I appreciate your response. As you are aware, there are Jewish groups and NGOs like B'Tsellem, Peace Now, JStreet etc., which vigorously and rigorously defend Palestinian rights and ctriticize israeli positions and policies, but do so in the love of a righteous Israel and the hope of purifying Israel.
Posted by gren at 10/08/2009 @ 10:22am
I don't know what to make of this statement gren, and perhaps I have misunderstood your point, because it sounds like something you would hear at a KKK rally, with all due respects.
What do you mean by righteous Israel? Israel is a state for God's sake, not the gates of heaven. I repeat, it is a modern state. It tries to be democratic and progressive, but it is flawed like any other. No state is righteous.
What do you mean by "purifying Israel"? How can anyone with a modicum of intelligence and self awareness buy this obscene rhetoric? I know the comparison has become parse, but is this not the language of the Nazis and the ugliest elements of followers of David Duke? How can any democracy ever include a desire or goal to become pure?
B'Tsellem, Peace Now, JStreet most definitely do not have these desires in mind, Yes, they support Israel and believe that Israel's health as a state in incumbent upon Israel becoming a civilized society that respects all human rights and international law.
Posted by Shingo at 10/08/2009 @ 5:45pm
cont'd.
Israel exists. Israel and it's supporters are in no need of any more legitimacy than the America and it's citizens. The notion of Israel's existence and legitimacy being in dispute, or even challenged is pure propaganda. The only parties that even raise the issue of Israel's existence are Israeli supporters. The argument is invariably used to justify Israel's policies, it's expansionism and continued occupation of Palestinian territory, as well as it's refusal to knowledge the refugees it drove from Palestine in 1948.
The few enemies of Israel that are delusional enough to challenge Israel's existence or legitimacy are in no position to influence it anyway, which makes Isrel's demands that they be recognized by stateless groups like Hamas seem rather trite.
I can't say I share your sentiments about f Jewish sovereignty in Israel. I realize that this is an emotional and therefore irrational subject, but Israel is either a democracy or it is not.
I wish I could be even handed and nuanced about he conflict, but the fact that it is not an even handed or nuanced conflict prevents me. We are not talking about 2 sides of equal power and influence here, but a military giant with massive support against a displaced, 3rd world population. My humanity demands that I be outraged..
Posted by Shingo at 10/08/2009 @ 5:56pm
Posted by gren at 10/08/2009 @ 10:29am | ignore this person | warn this person
are you familiar with E M Lilien?
he is the subject of my study. (one of the subjects)
Posted by emile duBois at 10/08/2009 @ 6:51pm
"I appreciate your response. As you are aware, there are Jewish groups and NGOs like B'Tsellem, Peace Now, JStreet etc., which vigorously and rigorously defend Palestinian rights and ctriticize israeli positions and policies, but do so in the love of a righteous Israel and the hope of purifying Israel."
Incredibly, Shingo has such poor reading comprehension skills that he interpreted this as a call for ethnic cleansing! Of course, by "purifying," Gren meant "restoring Israel's moral character and easing its guilt by seeking peace with the Palestinians," which is obvious in the context of the statement.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/08/2009 @ 7:22pm
Incredibly, Shingo has such poor reading comprehension skills that he interpreted this as a call for ethnic cleansing! Of course, by "purifying," Gren meant "restoring Israel's moral character and easing its guilt by seeking peace with the Palestinians," which is obvious in the context of the statement.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/08/2009 @ 7:22pm
In which case, the term would not be "purifying", but reconciliation, as was the term used to describe the process in South Africa.
Given the fact that there Israel are running adds warning of the danger to the character of Israel posed by mixed marriages, the term "purify" is a highly charged and dangerous one.
Posted by Shingo at 10/08/2009 @ 7:48pm
Posted by gren at 10/08/2009 @ 10:22am |
And don't forget Rabbis for Human Rights.
Posted by nkurland at 10/08/2009 @ 9:41pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/08/2009 @ 7:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Thank you
Posted by gren at 10/09/2009 @ 08:57am
and international law.
Posted by Shingo at 10/08/2009 @ 5:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I am not sure what being Jewish means to you, or if it signifies anything other than an accident of birth. (Please note I am not saying this with any innuendo or judgment -- I am looking to communicate, not argue.) For me, being Jewish is a spiritual commitment (not an obligation from a mythic past) to sanctify being and consecrate creation by acting morally, being mindful and acting unconditionally. The distinction between being Jewish and practicing the spiritual essence of Judaism (as opposed to the institutionalized religious rituals which derive from an ancient belief I do not share)does not exist for me.
The terms I used in my earlier post signify spiritual, not political or legal,values.
Posted by gren at 10/09/2009 @ 09:06am
Posted by emile duBois at 10/08/2009 @ 6:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I am not. I took a look at wikipedia and the Jewish Encyclopedia, but the entries on E M Lilien is rather limited. Why do you ask.
Posted by gren at 10/09/2009 @ 09:15am
Given the fact that there Israel are running adds warning of the danger to the character of Israel posed by mixed marriages, the term "purify" is a highly charged and dangerous one.
Posted by Shingo at 10/08/2009 @ 7:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I believe that the ads to which you refer focused on mixed-marriages in america and elsewhwere in the Diaspora (I don't really like that term), not in Israel. while the ads were clumsy if not offensive, the underlying concern is real. In a christian cultural society like America, the children and ultimately grandchildren of intermarriage are not likely to preserve the vitality of the Jewish identity, much less have an affiliation with Judaism. (note that this is a normative observation, not a value judgment).
Posted by gren at 10/09/2009 @ 09:20am
Why do you ask. Posted by gren at 10/09/2009 @ 09:15am | ignore this person | warn this person
just for fun. you remember fun don't you?
E.M.Lilien, zionist, artist, photographer, literateur.
everyone should know Lilien. certainly every jew should.
I also recommend Simon Dubnow.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/09/2009 @ 09:40am
the Jewish Encyclopedia,
ah, the jewish encyclopedia, a wonderful work, a mile stone of world culture. available on line.
of course it was published in 1905, a time when Lilien was just starting out.
I believe it is useful to digress from politics to culture, once in a while.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/09/2009 @ 09:44am
I also recommend Simon Dubnow.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/09/2009 @ 09:40am | ignore this person | warn this person
My wife grew up in Roosevelt NJ next to the kibbutz where Ben Shaun lived. She did a high school paper on him. When I met her, she took me to Roosevelt to see the great mural Ben Shaun had painted at the library there.
Posted by gren at 10/09/2009 @ 09:58am
Did you mean: ben shahn
be sure to google Dubnow.
these are great Zionists I'm talking about.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/09/2009 @ 10:12am
be sure to google Dubnow.
these are great Zionists I'm talking about.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/09/2009 @ 10:12am | ignore this person | warn this person
Dubnow sounds very interesting. a sad ending to his life. It's good that he did not live to see Israel under Netanyahu. sounds like he would be ashamed. (Me, I'm only ebarrassed, frustrated and angry.)
Posted by gren at 10/09/2009 @ 10:35am
Dubnow's magnum opus is his "History of the jewish people", which I am reading at present.
Lilien illustrated a christian bible, old and new testament.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/09/2009 @ 10:45am
nkurland at 10/07/2009 @ 12:14pm said:\
>> absolutely no level on which these two wars [WWII and Afghanistan] match up. .. the Allies attacked from 3 different directions, forcing the Germans to back themselves into a corner ... Afghanistan relies on popular support <<
Listen von Halfwitz. I said, we did not understand the Germans and Japs either, but f0ught them nevertheless. Because primary is not understanding the enemy but understanding one's own interest. You fight when those are threatened.
But in Afghanistan it is not America's but Obama's and the Left's interest that were and are served. The Left demanded this "good war" beginning in 2001 and Obama's 2008 political quest pledged this build up and the vow to make Afghanistan the central front against terror and a war he would fight to victory.
>> its a joke to say Obama is the first to conduct a war for the sake of his career. The entire reason LBJ invaded Vietnam was because of the memory of what happened to Truman after his "loss of China." Nixon was even worse. <<
At least you are conceding that this war is being fought for the sake of Obama, not the country. That is unprecedented. In the time of kings wars were fought for their sake of their personal humors and ambitions. But that this republic is being used in the same way by its president, is perverse, more than perverse, it is a high crime and misdemeanor.
Nixon got us out, not into Vietnam. Truman's unpopularity was not based on his loss of China, though yes, LBJ feared recriminations against the Democrats if they lost Southeast Asia, as they had China. But he did not fire up that war for his personal standing. To the contrary, he won a landslide election cooing dovishly against the hawkish Goldwater.
Posted by Pirovano at 10/10/2009 @ 08:07am
Posted by Pirovano at 10/10/2009 @ 08:07am
Its funny how you're still claiming that we were attacked by the Taliban. Commenting on the notion that the war was about making Afghanistan safer, Robert Baer, the former CIA operative, simply responded "its complete bullshit." There is nothing to justify this war.
And an understanding of the enemy is absolutely vital to winning a counterinsurgency, that's counterinsurgency 101. A guerrilla war sustains itself on knowledge of the land and gaining trust of the people so as to be able to blend in among them. There is nothing to justify this war.
Nixon got us out of Vietnam in the most nominal sense of the word withdrawal. Marilyn Young, in her book the Vietnam Wars details repeatedly what she describes as Nixon's numerous attempts to conduct the war behind what she called a "smokescreen." The more troops he withdrew, the more the administration relied on saturation bombing. It was only when his hands were absolutely tied that he completed the withdrawal. Thanks to his bungling we withdrew 2 years later then we otherwise would have, at the very least.
And the comments about LBJ reveal a similar lack of knowledge. In his 1964 campaign he deliberately positioned himself as a peace loving moderate to Goldwater's frothing at the mouth war mongering. That is to say, outright deception on the topic of Vietnam was in of itself a manipulatiion of a coming war to catapult himself into the presidency. And his own statements on invading to avoid castigation on the order of Truman losing China are entirely indicative of the fact that the invasion was to save his own hide.
Posted by nkurland at 10/10/2009 @ 4:45pm