The Hell-Hole Spectator
Avoiding Disaster in Afghanistan
The country is a land mine. If not handled properly, it will blow a hole in the Obama presidency before the midterm elections.
Afghanistan is a land mine. If not handled properly, it will blow a hole in the Obama presidency before the midterm elections. Peering down the barrel of the Afghan war, Yogi Berra would have said, “Don’t make the wrong mistake.” With Iraq consuming 4,000 American lives, 33,000 wounded thus far, and costs estimated between $1.5 and $3 trillion, U.S. taxpayers must ask precisely how homeland security is linked to Afghanistan, and if, indeed, they must gird themselves for another war of choice with more loss of American life and fortune while the nation confronts such pressing needs at home.
Barack Obama assumed office with 79 percent of Americans optimistic about his administration, including 59 percent of those who voted for John McCain. It was a moment like few others in modern times: the nation’s nerve endings are raw after eight years of hope and reversals on the bloody fields of Iraq and Afghanistan; controversy surrounds Bush administration policies on civil liberties, executive power and spending; we are shocked by the sharp global disapproval of things American; and our economy is in near freefall. To be fair, George W. Bush has seen us through seven years without further terrorism at home—an important achievement. But the price of suppressing risk at home and abroad is heavy, and the picture for 2009 is not pretty.
Our hopes now rest with an untested president for the vision, determination, and agility that will surely be needed going forward. Analysts are correct when they say Obama has moved to the “center”; one assumes he understands this is not the time for adventure or risk or expenditure on anything but the critical need to restart the economy and maintain the nation’s security. But does he?
Last October Obama said, “The trends across the board are not going in the right direction. Make no mistake: we are confronting an urgent crisis in Afghanistan, and we have to act. It’s time to heed the call from General McKiernan and others for more troops. That’s why I’d send at least two or three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan.”
Since the election Obama and his new choice for chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, have proposed to increase U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan by 35,000. He would redeploy soldiers being withdrawn from Iraq and hopes to persuade the Europeans to provide additional NATO troops. Present plans also call for discussions with the more approachable Taliban elements, outreach programs that emphasize reconciliation and cooperation with tribal elders, and providing local leaders funds to help protect roads, bridges, cell phone towers. And food shipments.
Yet U.S. and British NATO officers returning from their tours of duty are nearly unanimous in saying the Taliban have consolidated their position, that they have the momentum, that things are going in the wrong direction. Troop shortages and a failure to find common ground with local leaders have brought little progress. Despite promises, we have rarely followed up to provide water and electricity to battle-scarred villages, leaving tribesmen alienated and reliant on the Taliban. This has been made worse by our opium eradication program that destroys the cash crop most farmers rely upon to survive.
How Did We Get Here?
Taliban rule in Kabul was broken seven years ago in a lightning 22-day U.S. strike whose ferocity and effectiveness stunned military staffs from Moscow to Beijing to Tehran. Today, however, the Taliban controls all but the capital in this “graveyard of empires” nearly the size of Texas. It’s a violent tribal society rooted in Islamic fundamentalism, with 27 percent literacy, 40 percent unemployment, and 80 political parties. Founded in 1747 when Ahmad Shah Durrani unified the Pashtun tribes, this land of the Khyber Pass, celebrated by Rudyard Kipling, has not been conquered since Alexander the Great. Hoping to maintain a buffer between British India and Russia, Afghan tribesmen held their ground in 1842 to slaughter a British expeditionary force of some 15,000 men— leaving one man to escape and relate the grotesque horrors of the battle.
Then 147 years later, the USSR, bled white over 10 years, was defeated by the mujahideen with help from CIA-supplied Stinger missiles. And today the story remains the same: determined Islamist fighters with al Qaeda assistance, based in the border tribal areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan, have fought the NATO coalition to a standstill. Hamid Karzai, known in-country, as the “President of Kabul,” has made little progress in democratizing the country, while U.S. and UK casualties in 2008 were the highest since the 2001 invasion.
Some Hard Questions
As the new administration urges its reluctant British, Canadian, Dutch, and German allies to commit additional troops to the Afghan effort, the time has come for a few hard questions. First, what, exactly, is the U.S. national interest in Afghanistan?
Second, what, exactly, is the objective in Afghanistan: Is it to bring democratic governance to this vast, disconnected tribal system? Is it to pacify one province after another in hopes of bringing stability?
Is it, as analyst Andrew Bacevich says, simply to assure that terrorist forces intent on attacking the U.S. do not assemble there?
Third, is there any example in history of an outside power either subduing Afghanistan or modifying its tribal structure or values?
Fourth, can the American people be persuaded that stabilizing or transforming Afghanistan is worth the price in blood and fortune?
Letter to the Editor View all comments (45) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Stefan Halper
More Articles From The Hell-Hole Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/04/avoiding-disaster-in-afghanist
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Of Wizards and Weapons
- Eugenic Abortion 2.0
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
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
Pecos Pete| 3.4.09 @ 7:04AM
How about Mexico? Drug cartels are waging war on our border. The USA can't seem to help Mexico, so why should we think we can do any good in Afghanistan?
Hal G. P. Colebatch| 3.4.09 @ 7:38AM
"Afghan tribesmen held their ground in 1842 to slaughter a British expeditionary force of some 15,000 men— leaving one man to escape and relate the grotesque horrors of the battle. " As I have written earlier, this gives a false impression. The British force had only about 4,000 fighting soldiers. The rest were bearers and camp-followers. And of those 4,000 fighting soldiers, 3,000 were Indian Sepoy troops, trained and equipped for campaigning on the hot plains of India, not in the mountain-passes and deep snow-drifts of an Afghan winter. Many were actually bare-foot. Many would probably have died of cold even without the enemy. They were massacred while trying to withdraw from Kabul to British India, by Afghan tribesman who were acclimatised to the country, warmly clad and with longer-ranged muskets. The British were also handicapped by a sick and confused old general, who, it is my guess, was suffering from then undiagnosable and untreatable diabetes. The disaster would quite likely have been avoided if, instead of trying to get through the mountain passes in winter, he had holed up in the Kabul fortress and made a dash for India when the snows had melted in spring. this tells us nothing abnout campaigning in Afghanistan today, except the obvious fact that it is a tough country with tough people.
Apart from a big skirmish at Maiwand years later, the Kabul retreat was the only major British defeat in Afghanistan. Possibly the British deliberately exaggerated the horrors of Afghanistan campaigning to discourage the Russians. Well-led and well-equipped British armies with a degree of local support did quite well, though they generally got in and got out with limited and well-defined objectives - it probably helped that, unlike the Russians in the 198os, they were not trying to convert an intensely Muslim people to an Atheist ideology.
Hal g. P. Colebatch| 3.4.09 @ 7:41AM
Further to the above, the British Army massacred in Afghanistan in 1842 was hardly an "expeditionary force." It was a garrison which had been peacefully installed in Kabul to support a local ruler and after he was murdered was trying to withdraw as if had no further role.
jack| 3.4.09 @ 7:43AM
Everyone forgets about the War that never ends and we never win. The Drug War. Make all drugs legal and you deprive these countries of billions in profit. I could use some good weed right now and a little opium after looking at my IRA.
Obama should read "the man who would be king" by Macintyre to find out what we are up against. A country run by gangs who will sell their loyalty for a few dollars on an hourly basis, a country with no merchant class or history of trade. A country where the Great Britian and Russian empires went up smoke.
Use the drones. Just like in Iraq,if we lose one US soldier it is one too many.
Andrew P| 3.4.09 @ 8:29AM
Go after them with robots and drones. Build swarms of drones that hover in the air and shoot everything that moves, and will allow our forces to pull out. Drones can keep the Taliban forces in check for a while, and prevent them from organizing more 9-11 style attacks. Then work on plan B. Ultimately we need to direct a good sized asteroid to collide with this region. It will get rid of Afganistan, Pakistan and Iran for good. And if done secretly, it will be totally deniable. A so-called "act of god".
Crusader| 3.4.09 @ 8:42AM
Maybe we should have figured this all out before Oct 7, 2001? Hmmm? Maybe? Now, after 7.5 years of "the best military in the world" fighting a bunch of illeterate goat farmers to a rousing stalemate, NOW we wanna ask questions like "what constitutes success?" And our "leaders" (and I use that term VERY loosely) can't even agree? HAHAHAHA!
I swear if I were the Chinese, Russians, Persians, hell even North Koreans I would be absolutely EMBOLDENED by the, umm, "success" of the American military in Iraq & Afghanistan.
Michael Tomlinson| 3.4.09 @ 9:55AM
As an OIF veteran I'm disgusted by the ignorance shown by most Americans about the war, but even more so conservatives. Iraq was a war that needed to be fought and won , because first and foremost it was the war al Qaeda desparately wanted and needed to win. They lost and it has been won by President Bush and the US military without the support of the American people.
Sadly, Obama and the American people could squander the victory and eventually cause the death of thousands of more Americans needlessly, but what can one expect from a nation unwilling to sacrifice for freedom?
Despite UN & media claims Marines have kept watch over the Muthanna chemical dump where Sarin, VX, Tuban, Mustard Gas, etc. are stored (some have even been wounded by the WMD stored there). During the invasion at al Qut Marines found massive storage rooms filled with the ingredients to make WMD (they just needed to be mixed together). Over 500,000 tons of yellow cake that could be used in a nuclear weapons program were removed from Iraq. Without firing a shot Lybia surrendered its massive WMD and nuclear weapons program. Pakistan despot's supplier of nuclear weapons has ceased its bloody trade in nukes.
We've killed literally thousands upon thousands of al Qaeda fighters and extremist Muslims who needed to die with a death toll smaller than any previous war. In fact, military deaths during the Bush years were smaller than the Carter, Reagan and Clinton administrations.
We are at war and people die that is the hard fact of life. If America is to maintain its freedom it needs to get a "pair" and accept that we who choose to serve our country in the military might die in its defense. We're not afraid so please don't demean us with your gutlessness and unwillingness to sacrifice for the future of our country by whining about military death tolls in war. Where were you during the Carter, Reagan and Clinton administrations when we were dying needlessly during relative times of peace?
As for Afghanistan it is a backwater nation that is of no relative importance on the world stage and never has been, but it does afford us the opportunity to kill Muslim extremists. Killing America's violent Islamic enemies is a necessity, because these savage cannot be reasoned with or coddled. If we don't want to live in a country weakened by attacks from Islamic jihadist there is only one answer and it is not negotiating with Iran, Hamas or any other violent group of Muslims. It is eleminating and erradicating the threat.
Obama will probably lose in Afghanistan, because like a majority of Americans he lacks the intestinal fortitude of real war leaders like Churchill and George W. Bush, but do not use your faux concern for the lives of America's warriors to validate your personal desire to submit to Islamic terror.
Crusader| 3.4.09 @ 10:21AM
I'm re-reading the comments and I fail to see "faux concern" for troops masquerading as a desire to "submit to Islamic terror."
What I do see are two boondoggles masquerading as real wars. I see failure to truly identify the enemy of Western Civilization, i.e. islam itself. I see failulre to secure our own borders at home. I see feel-good policies aimed at winning hearts and minds instead of eradication.
I would gladly deploy to TX or AZ and shoot anyone who steps across the border--man, woman or child--or help build a fence. I'd volunteer to go on an illegal immigrant round up, kicking in doors here and sending them back to their own effed-up country. I'd volunteer to join an elite team to find and destroy all the islamic terrorist training camps operating RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA (but let a goofy Christian who thinks he's Jesus buy some guns and we burn his house down--sorry, that's a whole other rant). I'd gladly strap on my battle-rattle and close down every last frigging mosque in America and deport the islamists back to Arabia.
Problem is nobody in the military or government has the "intestinal fortitude" to make the right decisions for America's survival. Holding on to power (politician) or making rank (warrior/politician) is what we base our decisions on.
Problem is nobody has the guts to say it, let alone do it. You know, I could care less if the frigging islamists want to kill each other, chop off their daughter's heads, a$$-rape their sons, or worship a false moon god. Keep it in your borders. When you spill that crap out, you're done. No negotiating, no helping you build your country, no special treatment. Done.
Anyway, onward to Afghanistan. There are pencils and soccer balls to hand out to future jihadists.
Dustoff| 3.4.09 @ 11:17AM
Crusader
++++++++++++
Not to worry, these bad guys will not cross the border in the middle of the night. Our stupid state dept well give them green cards and let them just fly over here, just like the last group did.
John| 3.4.09 @ 11:34AM
The ten year drought will also factor into the war. Even more civilians will die with attacks on humanitarian aid. I know our armed services will be killed trying to feed people. Ordinary people will will be used like pawns by the taliban.
Thomas| 3.4.09 @ 11:49AM
Let me address a couple of points here.As to Iraq, Mr. Tomlinson is correct concerning the WMD materials found in-country. This does not take into account the types and amount of materials moved out of the country prior to the invasion. But that was of minor importance in the decision to invade Iraq. Iraq was in continual violation of the terms of the 1991 ceasefire that put the Gulf War on hold [targeting and firing upon US warplanes in the no-fly zone, attacks against the Kurds, refusal to comply with UN inspections, etc.]. It provided the opportunity to demonstrate, to would be enemy nations, exactly what the US was capable of militarily and would allow for a more secure place to base 50,000 to 80,000 US troops on the border of Iran, an avowed enemy of the US and world peace. This objective has now been reached. That nearly every non-Palestinian jihadist raced into Iraq to die at the hands of US troops was an unexpected bonus. Through missteps by the Bush administration, it has not been as successful in cowing Iran as hoped, but it has paid large benefits in the war against Islamic terror.
Afghanistan has been a different story. Afghanistan was supposed to be a quick in and out. Go in, find , arrest or kill Osama Bin Ladin, and get out. Afghanistan has absolutely no strategic importance to the US. But, Bin Ladin escaped to Pakistan, where we could not pursue him. A policy of active containment was adopted and "nation building" began. That the Afghans did not wish a nation to be built was irrelevant and rather than just packing up and leaving, we are still there. Unfortunately, the "nation" of Afghanistan extends for only a few dozen miles around Kabul. The rest is ruled by tribal leaders and the Taliban. There are also pressing reasons why Afghanistan is no longer a tenable place for US troops. The corridors of supply are rapidly closing. With the closing of Manas Airbase in Kyrgyzstan in the works, logistical support for troops in Afghanistan is limited to roads from Pakistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan [both of latter are essentially landlocked as far as ease of access for the US is concerned]. Given the lack of desire for a stable central government in Afghanistan with its isolation it is doubtful that any further, measurable progress will be made there, by the US.
As to Crusader's suggestion that we retreat to within our own borders, throughout history, that has never worked. It is always better to fight on someone else's turf, preferably your enemy's, rather than your own. Destroy his infrastructure, his society and his wealth, not your own. I will agree that this country, in its quest for political correctness, has failed miserably to secure our own land. But, that does not mean that the Iraq campaign, nor the original Afghan campaign, were not worthwhile. Unfortunately, Afghanistan will turn into Barack Obama's Vietnam, if we stay much longer.
ckigab| 3.4.09 @ 1:17PM
its ok they have there war plan & its so good that the war is over now..
Crusader| 3.4.09 @ 1:55PM
Thomas, I am not saying retreat to our own borders; I am saying we should secure them though. I am saying we should have cut off immigration from islamic countries on 9/12/01. I am saying we should round up and deport as many illegals as we can find, and build a freaking fence. It's funny, if you want to learn how to secure our southern border you should check out how the Mexicans secure THEIR'S!!!!! Nobody accuses them of keeping Guatemalens out though, do they?
We left our back door open and someone came in and robbed us, so we rush to the ghetto and try to find bad guys. Meanwhile the bad guys are still in the house and our back door is still wide open. Logic says get the bad guys out and put some locks on the door first, but then again nobody ever accused a politician or warrior/politician of being logical.
ruddyturnstone| 3.4.09 @ 2:51PM
I think Crusader is on the right track. Like him,I don't care who runs Afghanistan, or who wants to run it. If there is ever going to be someplace on this planet that is NOT of "vital security interest" to the US, it is going to have to be places in Central Asia like Afghanistan. Afghanistan produces no important goods. It has no economic significance at all-except for narcotics. It does not share anything at all with us culturally. We are not bound by treaty to protect it, or its government. It poses no threat to any sea lane or air space that might matter to us, or to any of our allies. It is a landlocked pile of mountains and rubble about as far away from us as a country could possibly be.
OK, pre9/11, Afghanistan harbored terrorists who were plotting against us. But I think we have more than made our point that we will not tolerate that happening again to the Taliban. And, even if we haven't, and even if, upon our leaving, the Taliban should take control of the country and again invite Al Qaeda (or something like it) to do its planning on Afgan soil, we are not without recourse. That's why we have all those intelligence agencies and satellites and stealth bombers, missiles and drones and so forth. Locate the terrorist camps and then bomb them into Kingdom Come. And do the same to the Taliban leadership in Kabul which allowed them to be there.
If that doesn't work, or is insufficient, we also have "Special Forces." I often wonder why they were not sent in to do the job after 9/11. My guess is that the answer is politics. The Bush Administration needed to start a big war to make itself look tough. It seems to me that 500 or so of our SpecialFforces soldiers, properly equipped, could be parachuted or choppered in to just about anyplace, at any time, and defeat up to 20x their number of raggedy ass terrorists.
What do we have them for, anyway, if not for that kind of thing? I refuse to beleive, with the hundreds of billions we spend on the military every year, that we are really reduced to only two options: (1) do nothing/diplomacy/sanctions or (2) full scale war--conventional invasion followed by COIN as in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Pull out of Afghanistan. If the Taliban take over, so be it. Give them fair warning: if terrorists plotting against us are on your soil we will bomb you and them without mercy. It they remain, we will send in Special Forces to kill them. If you attempt to interfere with our Special Forces operations, we will smash your government and armies with our air power. Our intent is to neutralize any threat coming from your country's territory at the minimum cost in lives and money to us. We don't care about collateral damage. We don't care about anything. We will not be sending in aid after the bombings. Nor we will be doing any "nation building."
It's your frickin' country. You can run it any damn way you want to. We actually respect that. You want Sharia law, go for it, we don't care. You want every man to wear a beard, that's your businees, not ours. You can do whatever you want in terms of economics, that's your affair. Just don't pull on our chain, or let anyone within your jurisdiction pull on it.
It seems to me there was a time, and not so long ago, that it was none of my, or anyone else in the USA's, business whether the Afghans had "democracy" or not, or whether the girls there went to school or not. Nor did I, or any other American, have to know the difference between a Pashtun and Tajik, or whatever. Let's go back to those days. Let's become strangers again to Afghanistan.
I don't want the US to be like the British Empire in its hayday, with its fingers in every pie and its "experts" on every national and subnational group from Timbuktu to Tashkent. We can remain a superpower, we can meet all of our treaty obligations, we can protect those parts of the world that actually share our culture, we can avoid isolationism, and we can defend ourselves against terrorism, without having to referreee among the six dozen factions, ethnic groups, political tendencies and so on in Afghanistan and places like it.
ruth| 3.4.09 @ 3:15PM
Obama's Vietnam. Loser.
jack| 3.4.09 @ 4:05PM
there were many reasons for Bush to invade Iraq.
1. at the time,there was much noise and panic about Iraq or terrorists in Iraq(there were terror camps in Iraq prior to 911)had suitcase nukes
2.we had to had to have a way to threaten the Saudis to keep their inhouse terrorists in check without invading them. This invasion of Iraq put us on their border and caused them to get tough on domestic radicals fearing they were our next target.
3.Saddam was financing much of the terror directed at Israel. he was paying palestinians to use their children as human bombs. these are the people obama and libs think we can reason with.
4.I hate to use this reason but since our new harvard educated President used it as the main reason for his new budget, "it was better than doing nothing". And it was. We had to show these radical dogs that we are to be feared. Bam and Libs do not understand the mindset in the middle east,they hate appeasers and view it as a weakness. they respect and honor people who use power to smash thier enemies.
5.Iraq is a country with a rich history of trading and a middle class. There is a basis for a democracy. One flourishing democracy could lead to others. Obama will destroy all of this.
Was the war mismanaged at times? Yes. All wars go through stages of disaster and success. All the best laid plans end the moment the first bullet is fired. But we won this war in two weeks and then Bush,didnt put his finger to the winds,he stuck it out. He won. We Won. The US and Iraq won. Those who hate freedom and good lost. There are many things I dont like about W,but was the only person in the entire country who had the guts to do the right thing. He went it by himself in the face of incredible odds. The Dems and mainstream media did everything in their power to defeat the US in this war. Bush beat them all. History will record that
ruth| 3.4.09 @ 4:26PM
Bush was stalwart in defending our country's national security, but I wish he would have defended our party, here at home, just a fraction as much. No doubt about it, his unwillingness to strike back at liberals' attacks hurt us. The enemy within was just as dangerous as the one outside. :(
Roy Lofquist| 3.4.09 @ 4:47PM
I don't have any answers but I do have a fear. It is that more than 100 nuclear weapons with delivery systems will fall into the hands of homicidal maniacs.
ruth| 3.4.09 @ 4:54PM
That's why I fear that Iranian bastard. The libtards are asleep at the switch, too. The perfect storm.
George Hanshaw| 3.5.09 @ 2:03AM
In the end, history belongs to those who show up. NATO - other than the Brits, is a joke. They have no deployable forces worthy of mention and the few they do have don't have the will to fight. What's worse, the Europeans (with the exception of their Muslim immigrants) don't even reproduce at replacement rates. Expect all of Europe to be Muslim in fifty years. Their political will to resist the spread of Islamo-fascism is already nonexistent.
Get ready to go it alone, US. If you want to KEEP the freedoms you have had for two hundred years, you will ultimately need to deter militant Islam the same way you did militant Shintoism and the Bushido. Nuke them until they yield.
Nothing else is going to work.
Angel| 3.5.09 @ 3:59AM
I'm more concerned about the commies within. Who says we're going to survive them?
JTS| 3.5.09 @ 6:15AM
Michael Tomlinson’s letter should be required reading for members of Congress before they open their twaddle holes on the subject of Iraq or Afghanistan. Thanks, Michael, for your service. Didn’t ya hate the sand and no-seeums? Damn bugs. The fact is that after the FGW we knew there were a lot of WMD that we had missed and could not be accounted for – and it has never been accounted for. I remember one incident where the Iraqis’ were transporting a few tankers of VX back up HWY 6 from the Kuwait boarder AO and one truck caught fire and burned. The Brits did the recon and got the samples. Where the other truckloads went? No one knows. They remain unaccounted for. And that’s just one incident.
Dr. Germ had been working on viruses and bacteria weapons for years and had weaponized anthrax successfully for years. The quantities of production of her work have never, can never, or could never properly be accounted for by UNMOVIC and UNSCOM even before Sadam kicked them out. The fact is the world is responsible for the Iraq war for not having the guts to finish the job the first time or properly monitor Iraq after the FGW. And by monitor I mean overthrow the sand-turd like we would have done in the good old days.
When we were ordered to stand down back in 91 a fellow Staff Sergeant and I looked at each other, shook our heads and said at the same time “We’ll be back here in ten years”. Even though we knew standing down had to happen given our mandates, we just couldn’t believe it. We had the forces right there to finish the job and couldn’t. Too bad this world is filled with gutless weasels – including this country.
I’m waiting for the next successful attack, because its gong to be a jaw dropping sight to behold. These people don’t plan small. Maybe they’ll hit Hollywood, or Frisco, or the East Side of NY where a lot of liberals live. Then we can hear Michael Moore tell them one more time how they hit the wrong people – how the liberals hate Bush and the Right and should be spared the horror of the terrorist’s attack. How they (Liberals) are simpatico with the terrorists and their “struggle” - remember that? Maybe the attack will kill Jon Stewart’s wife and kid the next time. I wonder if he’ll think its funny? Whatever the outcome, the reason for the next attack will be our stupidity and lack of courage.
Bush did a lot of wrong things, but he did understand our enemy better than the current crop of Lefty traitors running things. God bless him for that. As far as his stewardship on other matters, he stunk up the place. God help us now.
Thanks again, Mike. You hit the nail on the head.
ruth| 3.5.09 @ 1:45PM
JTS, why didn't Bush tell the American people what you and Mr. Tomlinson have just stated? He had the bully pulpit, why didn't he use it? Drives me nuts--and you're right, we are in it deep now. The American people DID support the war when it was explained to them; but Bush allowed his enemies to define him and his policies. Talk about a crisis of leadership. It's not hard to see our future, and it ain't pretty.
OccationalRoamer| 3.5.09 @ 2:05PM
Hey Crusader,
Have you ever asked yourself the questions, "Who supported Saddam Hussian in the 80s? Who helped create Osama and the Taliban? Who provided the bulk of the raw materials for Saddam's WMD programs?" The answer to all of them unequivocally is the USA. We went to Iraq to control the supply of oil and to create a sister country for Israel. It had nothing to do with WMD or Saddam or his tyrannical regime. We are in Afghanistan to secure the supply of oil from the central Asian countries by building pipelines and to keep in eye on China and Iran. These are legitimate strategic goals if pursued by competent and knowledgeable governments, not by idiots who follow the antiquated colonial policies of the past.
Matt| 3.5.09 @ 2:35PM
Yeah, the war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with those jetliners that flew into our buildings. Nothing. That September morning was just a figment of our imagination. For some leftist freaks it's all about oil, all of the time. Drug addled moron.
Thomas| 3.5.09 @ 4:58PM
It is true that the US did support Saddam and the Mujahadeen in the '80's. That was to counter what was perceived to be a larger threat, Iran and the USSR. You remember them. The country that took our diplomatic personnel hostage for over a year and declared war upon our nation and that benign dictatorship whose leader said, "We will bury you!" about the US. But, Iraq was never about oil, as evidenced by the fact that we have never seen any of it here, at home, since we invaded. As I postulated earlier, it was not because Saddam and his WMD's were any immediate threat to us. It was for other reasons related to national security that Iraq was invaded. Colonialism has become the label placed upon any military activity outside the US by the US government. The fact is, that during the history of the United States, this country has attempted to divest itself of every overseas possession that it has ever acquired. We are very probably the least colonial nation of the modern era.
Angel| 3.5.09 @ 5:25PM
I feel bad for our military; I wouldn't want to serve under this feckless, SOB president. God bless our warriors, I pray for you daily.
Pat| 3.5.09 @ 5:44PM
Mr Halper,
You are mostly right in your article. However, as one of the recently returning officers, from the very center of Afghan operations, you have one point very worng and that makes all the difference. Specifcally, you state " this has been made worse by our opium eradication program that destroys the cash crop most farmers rely upon to survive. "
Through a very foolish arrangement some years back, after the newly elected government was feeling its oats, we (US and ISAF) agreed to leave eradicating opium in the field to Karzi and company exclusively for the government's Ministry of the Interior. So now opium has tripled under our watch. Any eradication effort you elude to is targeted by Karzi's brother Wali (Govenor of Kandahar -90 percent of world opium production) to those farmers not paying his "non-eradication" insurance. And they pay it plenty. That's why only one percent of the opium is ever eradicated. In fact they are stockpiling it so much world heroin prices are crashing.
Though a retraction would be nice , please just get your facts straight if you plan to speak generically for all us "returning officers."
The real truth never understood by the media is drug dealings by goverment officials (Wali and 90 percent of the high office holders) is the basis of the lack of trust in the governement. Lack of trust in giovernment is the basis for renewed trust in taliban.
In the south and east the taliban have shadow governemnts everywhere and their kangaroo courts serve up justice swiftly and effectively. (Only one punishement - death). People like that.
Do you see how it all works now? Not too complicated, just way too politcal for anything serious to be done it.
PJK
Pingback| 3.5.09 @ 11:12PM
Afghanistan Today-The GWOT Hotspot-Fri. 3-6-09 « Orangekite1’s Weblog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pete | 3.6.09 @ 4:05PM
Telling that The Anointed One jettisoned the bust of Winston Churchill and sent it packing back to the British. Perhaps a bust Ward Churchill, the rabid America-hater would be a suitable replacement.
Gen | 3.6.09 @ 9:48PM
To Pete:
You're right... the crime in Mexico is spilling right across our border. Although I'm not sure whether our government can't do anything or just won't.
How about the fact that you are more likely to be killed as a civilian in Juarez, Mexico than in Baghdad? I don't hear much discussion on that in Congress.
See: http://foundingfatherscry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=274&t=723&start=0&hilit=juarez
Alan Brooks| 3.11.09 @ 3:17PM
I'm with Bacevich.
just kill bad guys, and save our strength for desperados on the southern border here.
Alan Brooks| 3.11.09 @ 3:21PM
... maybe the govt cant do much, or wont, but they will end up doing something eventually, wont they? such as EVENTUALLY calling up the Texas, N. Mexico, AZ, CA, guards.
like perhaps around 2015.
Pingback| 3.17.09 @ 5:20PM
Welcome | Project on Middle East Democracy links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Sabrina Marie Tylers| 3.18.09 @ 2:37PM
YYYYYYYYYOOOOOUUUUUUU NNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
PPPPPPPPIIIICCCCCCCCCCCCCSSSSSSSSSSS
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
fdgfd| 12.2.09 @ 1:33AM
H264 Converter,
H264 Converter for Mac
weqry| 4.22.10 @ 12:31AM
ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010Winning is without value if victory has been achieved ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010 or dishonestly. Cheating is easy, but brings no pleasure. Playing ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010 requires courage and character. It is also more satisfying. Fair Play always has its reward, even when the game is lost. Playing ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010earns you respect, while cheats are detested. Remember: It's only a game. And games are pointless unless played ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You
Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale
You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales.Poptropica I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You
Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale
You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. Poptropica