At Large
Obama’s War
He wanted it — but how can it not become his Vietnam?
Among the many things President-elect Barack Obama will have to address is that Afghanistan, his preferred war site, is going to cause far more trouble for his administration than he has been willing, or able, to recognize.
Obama’s military analysis in July that the United States might have to commit “at least an additional two combat brigades” is supported by September’s projection of two or three additional brigades by the commander of the NATO-led international force, Gen. David McKiernan The numbers are a bit confusing because McKiernan was talking about U.S. troops in excess of the 3,700 members of the 10th Mountain Division whose ETA is January ‘09. Current figures of U.S. troops in-country is 33,000.
The operational reason for this increase primarily has been the need for reinforcement of American military activity against Taliban elements operating in the south and east. Secondarily the objective will be to assign additional American units to the job of field training Afghan Army strike forces. There are 68,000 members of the Afghan Army currently, with an increase to 80,000 to 140,000 expected as the first phase of build-up.
President-elect Obama is counting on the success of this eventual buildup of the Afghan Army to the point of being able to take over the entire job of counter-insurgency nationwide. NATO military planners are reported to have estimated that such an effort would require a 400,000 to 600,000 soldier Afghan Army. One wonders whether Obama and his staff have done the math on that plan.
So far President-elect Obama has ignored the blunt statement of Britain’s field commander, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, who in early October said, “We are not going to win this war.” What Carleton-Smith followed with, however, would fit into Obama’s wishful thinking about the future of the fight against the Taliban. “…It’s about reducing [the war] to the manageable level of insurgency that’s not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan Army.”
In other words, the NATO forces led by the Americans aided by elite British and Canadian units would reduce the Taliban operations to a “manageable level” and then hand things over to the Afghans. Sounds good, but reality in the field indicates that arriving at that “manageable level” would require a multifold increase in American, British, and other forces, which is just not in the political economic cards.
Obama is all for the idea of negotiating with the Taliban. But there is no need for these Islamic fighters to negotiate when they do not feel pressed militarily to do so. Large parts of the south and east of Afghanistan are for all intents under Taliban control. When American ground forces, aided by air assets, strike Taliban mountain encampments, they are forced to attack the villages in which the fighters hide. Orchestrated political uproar ensues.
When such attacks hit Pashtun tribal areas, the reverberations are felt all the way to Kabul. President Hamid Karzai , a leading Pashtun, himself, is forced to be vigorously indignant, and the NATO command once again apologizes. Other than suggesting a campaign to divide cooperative Taliban from hard core, how President-elect Obama intends to break this cycle has never been explained. He is consistent, however, on the matter outlined by Brigadier Carleton-Smith of getting the war to the point of being “manageable” so as to have the Afghan Army take over. That’s not a strategy; it’s a prayer.
The problems of Afghanistan certainly are far too complex to be solved by the limited military means available. That’s the real reason behind the British commander’s statement. And, tragically, so is the expectation of democracy breaking out in this legendary land. Even now the plans for next year’s elections are threatening to dissolve. With the south and east Pashtun tribal areas effectively blocked off from participating, President Karzai is deeply worried that elections will result in pushing him out of office.
Karzai would like the traditional Afghan method of choosing leadership to be used. This would call for a massive council of elders (loya jirga) where political favors can be negotiated and leaders settled on. Hamid Karzai sees this form of “representative democracy” far more advantageous to him than leaving the vote up to general elections. And he may be right. Obama will have to deal with this ticklish political problem immediately upon entering office.
Barack Obama from the outset has tried to shift U.S. strategic focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. For some rather simplistic reason he thought there was greater legitimacy, and thus justification, for American military forces to be involved in the latter country. For Obama the fight to rid Afghanistan of the religiously tyrannical Taliban movement that has supported Osama bin Laden was righteous — as opposed to freeing Iraq from the proven genocidal grasp of Saddam Hussein.
At this stage of affairs the mountainous Afghan border with Pakistan is purely a theoretical divider. Any military effort to counter the Taliban as well as drive Al Qaeda from the Afghan side therefore is made ineffectual by the Pakistani sanctuary. The key is Pakistan, and getting its effective support has been the principal American target for the last seven years. In other words, Barack Obama’s approach to Afghanistan sounds good but recognizes none of the complexity endemic to the problem.
It may not be Obama’s creation, but it is his chosen war. Welcome to the real world of international security, Mr. President-elect!
About the Author
George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (50) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by George H. Wittman
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/11/14/obamas-war
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Crusasder| 11.14.08 @ 8:45AM
We could not win the "hearts and minds" of Vietnamese in the 60s and they were not the fundamental islamic nutjobs we are dealing with now. Why do we think we can win these people over to peace, love, "democracy," (God I hate that word, we live in a Republic, darn it!), and tolerance? Have any of our elected leaders actually read the koran, hadiths, suras, or maybe a biography of mohammed?
The only way to deal with islam is to eliminate it. For every one of us they kill with a terrorist attack, kill 1,000 of them. Then add another zero onto the number if they dare attack again. Pretty soon they get the point or run out of people. Isn't that what war is about? Kill more of them than they kill of you? Oh I forgot, it's all about "proportionality" now right?
Sawdust| 11.14.08 @ 10:28AM
Yes, we need to kill them. But we have a President-elect who wants to grant terrorists the full benefits and protections of the Constitution. We can't really expect him to kill them, at least not before Mirandizing them.
Thomas| 11.14.08 @ 11:01AM
Afghanistan was only supposed to be a quick in and out. Then, GW decided to try to make it a democratic country. Unfortunately, he was a colossal optimist or never bothered to analyze the "country" of Afghanistan.
Historically, the region known as modern day Afghanistan is peopled by a number of tribes or clans. The only centralized governments have been imposed, usually by outside invaders. All have been short lived. One of the reasons for this is the fact that the people, themselves, are much more comfortable with local tribal leadership as opposed to central government. The second reason is the topography of the country. The country is divided into three distinct regions. Plains to the southwest, plains to the north and the bulk of the country is composed of rather high forebidding mountains, that effectively isolate the lower plains from each other. This makes an effective centralized government pretty much a fairy tale.
Most of the people in the country consider banditry and the groups of armed men that roam the area to be the norm and are not willing, nor able, to do much about them. They just live with them.
This is as good as it gets in Afghanistan. Very likely, our military would have been out of there two years ago, after the first elections, if Osama Bin Ladin was proven to be dead. There is no real national security reason for the U.S. military to be in Afghanistan and the logistical problems are immense. Afghanistan is a landlocked country and can only be reached by traversing Iran, Pakistan, several other stans or China. If the Pakis ever deny the U.S. access to their airspace, our troops are cut-off.
Afghanistan was the Russians Vietnam and it can become another one for the U.S., if we stay. It is past time to leave that country. Harsh, I know, but true, none the less. Barack Obama can not withdraw from Iraq anytime in the near future. But he can and will withdraw from Afghanistan as soon as he can.
Obama Rules| 11.14.08 @ 11:55AM
Rumsfeld is the real instigator behind the War in Iraq; him and Wolfowitz. I blame them for this mess more than Bush.
Again, another Democrat gets to clean the mess of a Republican administration. When will you guys ever learn?
jerryofva| 11.14.08 @ 12:14PM
Obama may rule but it is ironic that the war he supports is essentially unwinnable while the one he opposes we have won. John McCain once described Obama's strategy as "lose in Iraq so we can win in Afghanistan." To those of us who know what is going on over there his strategy was lose in Iraq so we can lose in Afghanistan.
Obama and his national security team are too narrowly educated to understand the art of war and the of use national power. It will be just another disaster area to cope with when he done with his presidency.
Robert Nowall | 11.14.08 @ 12:54PM
To "Obama Rules": You mean like how the Republican Nixon came in to clean up the mess left by Democrats Kennedy and Johnson?
Obama Sucks| 11.14.08 @ 1:49PM
Bush and Petreus, with the political loyalty and support of an overwhelming majority of our troops, won the war in for us in Iraq. I think McCain, with the same support, could have done the same for us in Afghanistan. Obama, however, even if he turns out to be wise enough to keep Petreus on board (a dubious prospect at best) will not have our troops' loyalty or support. He's about to find out the hard way what it's like to fill Bush's shoes.
He will also have to deal with being chained either to the anti-war traitor faction of his party (not to mention the "right-wing" idiot traitors at LewRockwell.com) or the hypocritical faction that's in favor of going to war in Sudan. (They were never against going to war, you see, just against anything Bush was doing.) There's absolutely no way he can please them both, and there are plenty of ways he can earn the ire of both.
Bush will count it a mercy, I think, that he never encouraged anyone to build a personality cult around him, as there are none but the leftard liars to accuse him of not living up to some glorified graven image of himself. Obama, on the other hand, is going to rue the day he was born when his brainwashed worshipers find out he's only human, and a rather sorry example of the species at that. Inside of a year, I bet all the Obama voters will be wishing they'd voted for McCain, and McCain will be privately but passionately thanking God that they didn't.
Nommin| 11.14.08 @ 2:12PM
The present situation for the American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan has big problems in the face-saving department. If you've gone there in hopes of awakening a spirit for democracy, and find instead the inhabitants prefer their own ways, how do you leave without letting it fall into disarray, civil war or a terrorist government? No matter how good our intentions are, the principles of democracy have for us a poignancy others may not have, because they don't have a history of sacrifice for it.
If stuck in that situation I suggest (only half jokingly) making it look intentional all along. Call it a New Doctrine:
"Go along with American interests or we'll invade. Not to take over - just to uncork suppressed, murderous ethnic rivalries that will kill more of your people than our troops. So watch it."
Obama Rules| 11.14.08 @ 2:54PM
Robert Nowall: Nixon!?! Hahaha! Yeah, and clean he did! Now, THERE was a great president -- NOT. "Tricky Dicky." Wow, I can't even remember the last time the GOP had a good president. Abe Lincoln?
dyoung| 11.14.08 @ 3:31PM
I love the ignorance of "Obama Rules". I guess he's too young to remember that JFK (Democrat) got us involved in Vietnam and then LBJ (Democrat) continued and increased it. It's amazing how the Democrats have played Vietnam to be someone else's problem and use it to discredit others when it's convenient to them. I guess this will never end. You would wonder that at least once in a while they could honestly admit something.
Obama Rules| 11.14.08 @ 4:21PM
And I love the ignorance of dyoung. I guess you're too ignorant to remember that Bush got us involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Admit it. Admit it. Admit it. Admit it.
Obama` Rules| 11.14.08 @ 4:25PM
I am a idjit. Repeat.
Pete| 11.15.08 @ 1:07AM
First, Obama was not elected to rule (this isn't a monarchy) he was elected to govern. Yes, you moron, GWB got us into Afghanistan, google 9/11 to find out why.
If, as Thomas proposes, Afghanistan had been a quick "in and out what would have been gained when the Taliban simply moved back in after we left. It is and always has been about making the Afghanis self sustaining.
ruth| 11.15.08 @ 1:39AM
Obama Rules missed 9/11 because he was stoned out of his mind and thinks that George Bush invaded Afganistan just for kicks.
mountainaires| 11.15.08 @ 9:21AM
Who knows what Barack Obama really thinks about anything? He's a pathological liar; anyone who thinks they know what he'll actually do, is being naive and foolish. Every comment he's made was geared toward gaining votes; now, we'll discover what he really thinks. Buckle your seat belts; it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Kafir| 11.15.08 @ 9:49AM
Robert Nowall, you've got it all wrong. Vietnam was Nixon's war. The Congressional Democrats that took office in 1974 had to bring that mess to a close. Granted, the only troops left there were the embassy staff and our only commitment to that country was a few bucks in foreign aid, but it was still a mess that had to be cleaned up. So they cut that aid off and that government which over 50,000 of our soldiers died to create fell within a year.
Interestingly enough, during the campaign Obama said that he would leave troops in Iraq - the embassy staff.
TruthMan| 11.15.08 @ 10:00AM
Obamatard is a Marxist first and foremost. He will take from the doers and give to the don'ts, creating a downward economic spiral that won't support any war anywhere. Afghanistan will turn the leftards on Obamatard eventually, but first they will support the anti-Christ's endeavor in Afghanistan to bring atheism to those who have only known Allah. What could be more righteous than freeing a people of religion? Certainly not providing them democracy.
Kafir| 11.15.08 @ 10:06AM
Thomas,
Nobody ever said Afghanistan was going to be a quick in and out. Bush has consistently described the war on terror as a long war. The only thing anyone said would be quick is toppling Saddam's government, and that happened in, what, 21 days?
I also love the suggestions that we kill a thousand of them for every one of us that they kill or that we leave and say we'll be back if they hit us again. Really, do you think anything like that is going to happen? Of course not. We're stuck between a rock and a hard place. We can't walk away because we know it will revert back to being a haven for terrorists and we can't bomb them to the stone age because they're already there.
We need to build a stable government that will suppress the terrorists in their midst.
What we need is less killing of Taliban and more nation-building. They need roads, plumbing, schools, etc. If you're going to create a democracy, you need to make sure that it isn't loaded with people who hate you. We proved in Iraq that you can indeed win the hearts and minds of Muslims.
Unfortunately, Obama is on a quest to capture or kill bin Laden because he wants desperately to show that Bush was wrong and all we needed to do was get bin Laden all along. He said he is open to invading Pakistan to do it. This war is likely to get more interesting.
On the up side, Obama does plan to bring all those Arabic translators we're wasting in Iraq to Afghanistan to help out with the nation building.
OkieRoy| 11.15.08 @ 10:49AM
OR, of course I'll admit Bush got us into Afghanistan and Iraq, first to punish the Taliban and al Qaeda for 9-11, then to take out Saddam Hussein, who was in violation of 17 UN resolutions, had broken GW1 armistice by firing upon the U.S. military, and was classified by Clinton as needing to be removed (regime change). Guess Willie-boy didn't have the guts to take action like Bush did. Or Congressional authority, as Bush did too.
Or are you going to argue (like many ignorant liberals) that the war was, in some fantasy world, "illegal"?
Robert Nowall | 11.15.08 @ 11:46AM
...of course the forty-seven thousand four-hundred-and-twenty-four battle deaths in the Vietnam War came to absolutely nothing because of what the Democrat Congress of 1975-1977 chose not to do---as well as the millions in Southeast Asia who died because they made this choice.
ruth| 11.15.08 @ 1:19PM
I wouldn't want my son to enlist in the military--not with those cowardly liberals in office now. They don't give a damn about our soldiers.
Thomas| 11.15.08 @ 5:08PM
Kafir,
Sorry to have to disagree with you here, but, the US military was expected to go into Afghanistan, capture or kill Osama Bin Ladin and as many Al Qaeda personnel as possible and kick the butt of any taliban troops that got in the way. Then, leave. unfortunately, Osama escaped to Pakistan. The Taliban put up enough resistance to leave the central government, what little there was of it, in total chaos. And we were stuck there. Unable to leave because of the continued presence of Osama , Al Qaeda and the remaining Taliban holed up in the tribal areas of Pakistan. So, as long as we couldn't leave, and allow the bad guys to reenter and regain control of the country, the administration decided to build a democratic government there. Unfortunately, the newly installed Karzai government and the Afghan "army" and "police" have proven totally inept at controlling the Taliban, Al Qaeda, the tribal leaders, warlords and bandits in the country. So, we are still there. When the stated goal of the military mission to Afghanistan, the capture of Osama Bin Ladin, was not achieved, we had to stay.
Now if Obama increases our military participation in Afghanistan, he risks running afoul of the anti-war movement that backed him. His easiest means of appeasing them, even slightly is to cut Afghanistan loose. It is impossible for him to withdraw from Iraq anytime in the near future, events will not permit it.
As to building a stable government in Afghanistan, good luck. The country and the people are just not conducive to any type of stable, centralized government.
Alan Brooks| 11.15.08 @ 9:15PM
As Rush said, we can only smash Afghanistan UP to the stone age.
Obama can smooth things out somewhat. But-- and I'll keep saying this-- as long as arabs, and so many others hate the Jews to the point of cutting their own noses off their faces, peace will not come to Afghanistan or Iraq, or anywhere else in the mideast that is destabilized or destabilizing. And that is just for starters.
DARPA, i guess, means we can afford the wars (naturally some here will disagree); as long as we know that peace is temporary: a treaty is signed, things settle down, then flare up, settle down, flare up... another treaty... round and round.
Just like life itself.
Kafir| 11.15.08 @ 10:44PM
Thomas,
I have to disagree with your version of history. I don't think it played out like that.
However, your comment about Afghans just not being cut out for a stable government really irks me. It is what Bush called the soft bigotry of low expectations.
It wasn't that long ago that the same thing could have been said about Europeans, Asians, or Africans.
I think you're being shortsighted. Prior to the Soviet invasion, Afghanistan had relatively stable governments for hundreds of years, interrupted by the British, of course.
Alan Brooks| 11.15.08 @ 11:50PM
Yes, Kafir, the Brits did interrupt Afghan stability, but 2008 is long after the imperialism.
BTW why don't more outspoken Arabs just come out and scream at the top of their lungs: "Israel must die!"
After all, 2008 is long after the Holocaust-- get the message?
Alan Brooks| 11.16.08 @ 1:00AM
Look what I object to is the Islamic (and since Afghanistan was, or still in many ways is, the nation of the Taliban we can discuss this here) corrosion of national life. Islamicism promotes more violence than many other faiths, promotes polygamy, and even the polygamous marriages of older men to underage girls.
Can it be demonstrated that Islamic immaturity hasn't been as great a destructive force to Afghans as British imperialism and Soviet Army invasion?
Kafir| 11.16.08 @ 8:15AM
Alan Brooks,
You've hit the nail on the head. Islam is stuck in 1,300-year-old thinking. Hundreds of years ago, the Christian church went through something called the Reformation. The church stopped being about the clergy and their power and got back to being about worshiping God.
Islam needs to have a similar event. The question is how to make something like that happen. It doesn't look like it's going to happen on its own. You can't have an Islamic Martin Luther because there's no monolithic structure (i.e. a Pope) for him to rail against.
I think therefore the only way is to infiltrate Muslim culture on a grassroots level. Show everyday Muslims that the rest of the world has moved beyond stonings, amputations, plural marriages, etc.
I was reading an Iraqi blog a while back and the blogger said his tribal sheik always complained about the clerics saying "We just want to live our lives and all they want to talk about is death." So, I think the dissatisfaction is there, it is up to us to exploit it. Do we have the will or the patience to do so?
A cynic| 11.16.08 @ 9:55AM
Because Obama is a flaming left wing liberal, he will be able to do as he pleases and our Pravda, Isvestia and Die Sturmer fascist, bolshevik media (i.e., the demokratic party propaganda arms) will support him. So if the Afgan situation goes to hell, Obama will merely sweet talk his way thru it, his propaganda arm will second the motion, and, poof, there will be no problem .
The "press" in this country creates problems, and by simply ignoring those problems that may embarrass those with whom they are politically sympathetic, they essentially make any problem disappear or, more to the point, render it non-existent.
Witness the homeless "problem" that simply disappeared when Clinton became president. Or, better yet, the "media" reporting of the Vietnam War in which their treasonous "reporting" created the domestic unrest that forced the US to hand over the victory to the North.
And of course, the media reporting of the Iraq fiasco (which it was, pre-surge).
Every conflict in which the US has engaged, from the revolutionary war to the present, has been characterized by screw-ups, lost battles due to stupidity, initially incompetent generals and egregious mistakes.
What is different since Vietnam, is that the "press" in this country actively seeks the defeat of the US, hates capitalism and believes the US is the seat of all evil in the world.
Obama's upcoming "Carteresque" foreign policy will produce predictable results and Obama will simply talk his way out of his failed policies, with the full support of our sycophantic media.
The North Koreans, Communist Chinese, Putin, Chavez, the Afghan Taliban, Ortega, the Iranians, et. al., are simply waiting for his inaugauration to be a done deal.
Perhaps the only good news to come of all this is that the hate-America first europeans and latin americans will get a dose of reality right between the eyes as a more sinister group of Great Satans, freely and unencumbered take to the field; completely UNRESISTED.
When this comes to pass, we should tell the euros and others to go to hell. They got what they wished for and they will need to live with it.
Sweden's foreign policy is ARMED NEUTRALITY, and the US should follow a similar tact. Unfortunately , Obama , the left wing utopian ideologue that he is, believes in disarmament - notwithstanding 500 years of history that demonstrates the stupidity of that approach.
If Obama can suppress his utopian left wing ideological pacifist bent and allow historical experience and reality to intrude into his world of make believe, the US will arm itself to the teeth and mind it's own business.
I am not holding my breathe.
I am buying gold.
Kafir| 11.16.08 @ 11:10AM
Cynic,
Carter's failure to win reelection shows that no matter how much they sugarcoat it, the media cannot hide a steaming pile of bad news for long. The Iran hostage crisis and economic malaise couldn't be hidden and it ended Carter's chances of reelection. Such will be the case with Obama.
Unfortunately, we're still cleaning up after Carter (Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan are all his legacy) and we'll have to clean up after Obama as well.
ruth| 11.16.08 @ 4:13PM
I just hope we'll still be able to clean up the mess he makes.
Red Neck| 11.16.08 @ 7:57PM
The damned opium poppy trade is largely what is keeping the trouble element in Afghanistan going. Can't we come up with some kind of sabotage pollen which would cause the next generation of opium poppies to produce infertile seeds -- and dust it over the entirety of Afghanistan?
Red Neck| 11.16.08 @ 8:06PM
Thank the Lord, one thing we got now which wasn't an element during the Carter years is the world wide web. America does not have the political will to silence the web like China and to a lesser extent Australia do. (Australia is trying to squelch child porn and do-it-yourself euthanasia instructions. AFAIK there is no political material involved in Australia's ban.) Obama's blunders will be all over the web. The MSM will not be able to hide this stuff behind euphemisms, although liberals will strenuously attempt to jam the information through their usual supercilious remarks.
Kafir| 11.16.08 @ 8:25PM
Red Neck,
We can't kill the poppy fields just yet. While Afghanistan is a great place for agriculture, they do not have the infrastructure to store and transport traditional crops. Once we get that in place, we can start to get people to scale back on the poppy production.
GeorgiaPeach| 11.16.08 @ 9:28PM
Kafir et. al., the missing ingredient that we are forgetting in this equation is the very real prospect that one of Obama's and Pelosi/Reid's first acts is going to be to wave their wand to turn 12 million illegal aliens into citizens, making Obama vote-proof, no matter how bad he/they screw up. All those formerly red states along the southern border will now be solidly blue.
Alan Brooks| 11.16.08 @ 10:27PM
I was a futurist for 30 yrs, what a waste; now all these predictions from everybody literally make me sick. Obama will do this, do that. He'll invade Pakistan, he wont, he'll do a surge in Ashcanistan, he wont. 12 millions illegals will be made citizens. Pelosi will marry Ann Coulter in Connecticut.
God I hate predictions! I really do curse the years I read Toffler, Naisbitt, Esfandiary. Life is a vapor to begin with and we proceed to squander it.
Self deception reaches up to the heavens, delusive memes fill our minds like termites chewing through a structure. And worst of all the Newt. How could a brilliant conservative with a doctorate be a futurist? How? because intellectuals are tricksters, that's why! Who predicted the wars of today? Who is going to predict how it all ends up? No one, that's who. All those glitzy books aren't worth the paper they are printed on, nobody has the foggiest notion what is going to occur 100 days from now.
All IS vanity, all are dirty rags called theses and books & magazines. Futurists are sorcerers. The mouth is a stinking tomb...
ruth| 11.16.08 @ 11:56PM
How depressing.
Alan Brooks| 11.17.08 @ 12:18AM
Ruth,
materially things get better, even with war (DARPA means enormous material progress); but morality goes south. My dad remembers it going way down in WWII.
"Where's the whorehouse?" the dogfaces would ask right away.
War means tech goes up, morality goes down.
You take the good with bad-- didn't you always?
ruth| 11.17.08 @ 2:28AM
It's still depressing, and kind of creepy.
Kafir| 11.17.08 @ 6:54AM
Alan Brooks
I once read a quote from a university professor. He was lamenting how lazy and disrespectful his students were compared to his generation. He worried about the fate of civilization should succeeding generations continue their deterioration at the pace he observed. That professor's name? Socrates.
Gilloff| 11.18.08 @ 10:51PM
Once Obama gets the troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan he will invade Pakistan and go after Bin Ladin and gain control of the Nukes
Jim C| 11.21.08 @ 8:36AM
Republicans, Vote "NO" for the war vs. Afganistan. Without leveling the entire country, it's a no win situation...just ask Russia. In four years, after billions of dollars and no Bin Laden, the Republican nominee must get up and say I voted "NO" for Obama's war.
Pakistan is our ally.
mts conveter mac| 4.2.10 @ 5:44AM
HD Video Converter for Mac is professional HD converter, provides you the functions of decording and encording HD videos.
MTS Converter for Mac is an excellent Mac MTS conversion software which can convert MTS to all popular videos files on Mac with perfect quality and fast conversion speed.