Another Perspective
Our Nice-Guy War
How are we to distinguish “civilians” from “insurgents” in Afghanistan?
For several days, the front pages of our leading newspapers have been filled with stories about how NATO allies bombed two fuel tankers in Afghanistan and accidentally killed some innocent bystanders.
The strike, ordered by a German commander and implemented by an American pilot, was “the deadliest use of German military force since World War II,” according to the Christian Science Monitor. And this has “injected an intense, emotional debate about the war” into a German election. It has preoccupied us, too.
Here’s how a recent page-one story began in the Washington Post (Sept. 5). When you read it, pretend it is 1944 and for “northern Afghanistan” read “Germany”:
The allies “launched an investigation Friday into a predawn airstrike in which an American fighter jet bombed two hijacked fuel trucks in northern Afghanistan, killing scores of people and prompting accusations that many of the dead were civilians.”
If I were General McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, I would ask: How are we to distinguish “civilians” from “insurgents”? (“Insurgent” is the new polite word for the enemy.) Are we to assume that anyone not carrying a rifle is a civilian? Can we ask the UN to proclaim that combatants should clarify matters by wearing uniforms?
In Afghanistan today, we are expected to wage a nice-guy war against indeterminate bad guys and at the same time avoid collateral damage against those who may one day be on our side. Or maybe not. Their decision in that respect is understood to depend on how nice we are in the interim. (Are we helping to advance the cause of women’s rights, for example? We only have to spell out such conditionals to realize how absurd the whole situation is.)
Our NATO allies fight under even more restrictive rules. The Germans, for example, are not allowed to attack suspected enemy forces unless those forces first attack them. They are targets, in other words, but they are allowed to shoot back.
The U.S. has now invested its prestige in fighting a war against a country which is not really a nation but a collection of tribes who, when not united by a common external foe — such as the U.S., or before us the Soviet Union — would be at each others’ throats. Meanwhile we have enlisted the loyalty of tens of millions of Americans whose patriotism is engaged. They support the U.S. side with all the fervor of sports fan cheering on the home teams.
Most Americans no doubt recognize that the terms of engagement against today’s “insurgents” in faraway places are more restrictive than they were against Nazi Germany. But I doubt if they realize just how onerous and self-defeating the new rules have become.
Here I will skirt the question whether the U.S. ought to be in Afghanistan for geopolitical reasons, for reasons of prestige, or for any other reason. I will simply say this. Fighting a nice-guy war, in mountainous and extremely hostile terrain, where we cannot easily distinguish friend from foe, and where we are severely restricted in the way we use the weapons at our disposal, is a losing proposition.
The man most imperiled politically by this state of affairs is the President of the United States. It will be difficult for him to pull out of such a conflict, and (I believe) impossible for him to win it. As an interim measure, then, perhaps he should spell out publicly what the new rules of engagement are. That way, Americans citizens may more easily decide whether to support our continued involvement in such a conflict.
About the Author
Tom Bethell is a senior editor of The American Spectator and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages, and most recently Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary? (2009).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (53) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Tom Bethell
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/10/our-nice-guy-war
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
- How Not To Buy a Fighter
- A Panoply of Beauties
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
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
Vera | 9.10.09 @ 6:56AM
Nice work. I have read this. But...
S.L. Toddard| 9.10.09 @ 8:21AM
Joe Galloway has the only solution to the problems Mr. Bethell addresses:
“Gen. Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said these questions all must be answered with a loud YES before the United States takes military action. He listed his questions in the 1990 run-up to the Persian Gulf War, drawing heavily on the Weinberger Doctrine that was laid down by former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger during the debate over America’s ends and means in Lebanon.
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened? 2. Do we have a clear, attainable objective? 3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? 4. Have all non-violent policy means been exhausted? 5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? 6. Have all the consequences of our action been fully considered? 7. Is the action supported by the American people? 8. Do we have broad international support?
“It can fairly be argued that not a single affirmative answer can be given to Gen. Powell’s eight questions with regard to the actions now planned or under way in Afghanistan. Had those questions been asked about Iraq in early 2003, not a single affirmative answer could have been given.
There was, in the beginning in Afghanistan, a vital national security interest in toppling the Taliban government and killing or capturing the Taliban’s murderous guests, Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida terrorists. We toppled the Taliban, but we let al-Qaida flee over the rugged, mountainous border into Pakistan.
“We no longer have a vital national security interest or a clearly attainable goal in Afghanistan. Our stated goal is to deny any future sanctuary to al-Qaida in Afghanistan — but al-Qaida isn’t based in Afghanistan and hasn’t been for years.
“If you’re determined to fight a war, choose a commander whom you trust and a strategy that you back, and then give your military leaders all the resources they say they need to achieve your objective.
If you can’t do that, if your objective isn’t clear, if the American people... aren’t with you, then order a withdrawal and explain why.
For God’s sake, don’t ratchet up slowly, buying time with the bodies of dead and wounded American soldiers, while you try to sell the wrong war in the wrong place against the wrong enemy to the American people.
For eight years, we’ve heard presidents and other politicians talk about setting conditions for a democratic central government in a country — really a bunch of tribes and clans — that’s never had such a thing in 2,000 years and seemingly doesn’t want one now.”
“It’s time to make a decision, Mr. President, and I hope that for our sake and yours, you make the right one. Afghanistan isn’t worth the life of one more American soldier, much less the hundreds and thousands that an open-ended commitment to a war that we cannot win would cost.”
http://original.antiwar.com/ga.....ican-life/
War is anathema to constitutional government. Conservatives interested in conserving our system of gov't and way of life need to demand we leave Afghanistan and Iraq NOW. Conservatives who "support the troops" need to prove it by demanding no more of them die nation-building.
Melvin| 9.10.09 @ 8:23AM
Being a retired Marine Infantryman, I can offer a somewhat singular opinion on how we are conducting the war in Afghanistan.
First off, the face of war constantly changes in how we fight. We didn't fight WWI the same we we fought the Spanish American War, we didn't fight WWII the same we fought WWI and so on.
The enemy today is no longer the enemy that wore an easily identifiable uniform and played by the rules of war. As odd as that sounds, yes our enemies of past battles played by the rules of combat, such as uniforms, not using civilians as shields, no shooting at corpsman or those rendering aid to the fallen etc.
Well, Al Quieda Bin Laden changed all that. To this new enemy there are no rules only religious fervency to destroy the infidels.
This enemy is smart, propaganda savy to manipulate the mainstream media to portray them as the victim of US imperialism and aggression. This enemy uses women, and children to shield them from US and allied firepower, and even goes so far to fabricate battlefield casualties to maximize the media effect on public opinion to depict the US as slaughtering innocents.
These enemies are finding sanctuary in Pakistan, intelligence, armaments, training, and tactics from Iran, and funding from Saudi Arabia.
In a nutshell the military option in Afghanistan has backed us into a corner, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, either way we lose because we are unwilling to take the war to Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Make note by my saying, "Take the war to Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia," doesn't necessarily mean the military option, because a war cannot me won entirely on military strength.
So, I guess we could say we are at a crossroads here, to we fight this war as war should be fought or do we further hamstring our forces in the war of attrition with the global jihadists.
There is no such thing as a clean war, good war, or legal war. War is only death, destruction and destroying the enemies will to fight, that is why it is so damn important that when our government decides to send us into combat, all other lesser means have been exhausted and armed conflict is the only means left.
But with the war in Afghanistan it isn't us destroying the enemies will to fight, but it is he who is destroying ours.
Crusader| 9.10.09 @ 8:42AM
Here's an idea that makes as much sense as anything else coming out of the pentagon today.
Make like 10,000,000 smiley-face buttons. Air drop them all over Afghanistan with a note attached to each that says: "If you now or maybe one day could see yourself supporting the USA, put this button on." Then whoever is wearing a button, we don't shoot. How's that?
Ammo Guy| 9.10.09 @ 9:13AM
The best part is that "The Taliban have called for a UN and human rights investigation into an air strike in Afghanistan on Friday that killed dozens of people." You just can't make this stuff up.
Havoc29| 9.10.09 @ 9:32AM
Mr. Bethell,
It's even worse than bombing "civilians". If you read a September 8 article from McClatchy, 4 Marines were killed in an ambush in Afghanistan. They had to wait 1 HOUR for air support. They couldn't call in artillery/mortar support because they were near a village and shelling a village might kill civilians.
How would you like to be the Company Commander of those Marines writing home to those boys parents saying they died because we couldn't use the full extent of our firepower to kill our enemies.
As an active member of the military, this disgusts me. As Rush says, our military is becoming a "Meals on Wheels" organization. He is absolutely right. When our military is more concerned about providing for the welfare of civilians and less about defeating our enemy, we have lost. Our military has become too PC and we have been neutered. I have heard high ranking field grade officers say on more than one occasion that in reference to operations in Afghanistan, "we need to train 'just killing' out of the soldiers". Meaning, they want the priority to be on humanitarian assistance and "winning the hearts and minds" garbage and not on killing bad guys.
sclemens| 9.10.09 @ 10:16AM
As a Navy pilot in Viet Nam, I saw first hand the Democrat's concept of fighting a war.
I was willing to put my life on the line for my country. Johnson and McNamara were more than willing to take it.
Either fight the war or get the hell out.
Havoc| 9.10.09 @ 10:44AM
Havoc29 -
You guys certainly do covet my handle ('Havoc'). And, yes, the rules of engagement are absurd - as are the explanations for our presence in Afghanistan.
I believe that this confusion traces back to President Bush's failure to educate himself about the character of our enemy - and the failure to name that enemy: 'Islam'.
Rather than face an ugly reality, President Bush chose to host that ugly reality to an endless series of dinners at the White House. It turned my stomach - and continues to do so.
Chin up, Havoc29 !
S.L. Toddard| 9.10.09 @ 10:52AM
"As a Navy pilot in Viet Nam, I saw first hand the Democrat's concept of fighting a war."
And how was the Republican concept under Nixon different? Apart from his finally pulling the plug on that disaster, I should say.
fundamentalist| 9.10.09 @ 1:28PM
Have we forgotten the lessons of Viet Nam? We crushed the Viet Cong, soundly defeated the North Vietnamese army and concluded a just peace that ended the war. A few years later, after we had pulled out most of our troops, the NV broke the treaty an invaded the South. But the South refused to fight. They never wanted freedom from communism.
The most important rule from the Viet Nam experience should be that you can't force people to want freedom. If they don't want it, fighting for them will not make them want it. But if they want it, we don't need to fight for them; they can fight for themselves. The war in Iraq turned around for the better because the Iraqi people decided they wanted freedom, not because of the US surge. The surge would have failed miserably without Iraqi support.
The case is even more clear in Afghanistan. With the aid of weapons and missiles, the Afghans ran the USSR, the world's #2 superpower out of their country by themselves with no US troops to help. After 2001, the Northern Alliance destroyed the Taliban with nothing more than our aerial support and advice from a few Green Berets. The Afghans have clearly demonstrated their fighting ability. The Taliban are far less powerful today than when the Northern Alliance defeated them. So what are we doing there?
As in Viet Nam, the enemy has another country to hide in, a protected sanctuary, out of our reach. US troops cannot go into Pakistan nor would we want them to. But Aghans troops in civilian clothing could cross the border and destroy the Taliban if the wanted to.
We are in danger of creating another disaster like Viet Nam if we force this war on the Afghan people. We could win the war against the Taliban with our troops, only to have them come back once we leave and take over the country. The only people who can prevent that are the Afghans themselves. If they want freedom from the Taliban, they have the fighting capability, with some weapons from us, to win the war easily without any of our troops being involved except to guide bombing runs from US aircraft. If they don't want freedom, we're wasting our time and soldiers' lives as we did in Viet Nam.
To the topic of this article, if Afghans were calling in the air strikes, do you think they would complain about civilian casualties? They can complain only because they have no skin in the game.
S.L. Toddard| 9.10.09 @ 1:35PM
"The Taliban are far less powerful today than when the Northern Alliance defeated them. So what are we doing there?"
We are nation-building - something Republicans once cynically pretended to oppose.
Cris| 9.10.09 @ 2:24PM
So why don't we go back to what worked? Lots of black, very little green, a ton of money to the tribes who will fight for us. Instead, it's the same slippery slope of escalation.
Nation_building| 9.10.09 @ 3:20PM
my question to americans,
who is your enemey?
is that afgans or muslims?
why your allies are withdrawing from the war?
what is your objective in afgan and who is your targets?
is it civilians or insurgents?
if it is insurgents, how do you identify or distinguish them?
do you think that the rest of the world will believe you anymore?
are you going to give the freedom for afgan women when you can't give the life of thier loved ones?
what are you gambling up on?....
let me put this from history.....
in the plot to kill prophet mohamed they formed allies from 7 tribes from the ancient mecca , and recruited people from all the tribes including his own tribe ...
Now we have one word for that -"Coalition..."
think it over and try to answer ...or just call me terrorist sympathiser
saleboter| 9.10.09 @ 3:32PM
It's simple to tell the civilians from the terrorists. You wait until they shoot at you or blow you up. If they do it they are terrorists, if not civilians. Of course you will be dead but you will know.
S.L. Toddard| 9.10.09 @ 3:45PM
"So why don't we go back to what worked?"
Exactly! We should leave the middle east and stop propping up corrupt regimes.
Ron Holt| 9.10.09 @ 5:20PM
To S Clemens,
Bravo, brother. I fought in Nam too (airborne infantry, Hue sector, Central Highlands) and couldn't agree more. Fight all out or go the hell home. Our unit fought that way--we killed hundreds of NVA-- but the political bosses kept jerking us around from place to place and the enemy seeped back after we vacated. Just like in Fallujah. These politicians never learn, and we continue to die.
sclemens| 9.10.09 @ 5:30PM
"And how was the Republican concept under Nixon different? Apart from his finally pulling the plug on that disaster, I should say. "
Thank you for asking, S.L. Toddard. Under Nixon, we mined Hiaphon harbor and bombed Hannoi. He turned us loose with laser-guided bombs and we destroyed 25 bridges in one afternoon. He didn't try to control our ingress and egress routes. In short, he allowed us to fight the war.
Where where you?
c. j. acworth| 9.10.09 @ 6:10PM
A friend of mine who was in Vietnam would probably answer Mr. Bethells question by saying "Kill'em all, let God sort 'em out." And he would only be half-kidding.
S.L. Toddard| 9.10.09 @ 9:48PM
"Thank you for asking, S.L. Toddard. Under Nixon, we mined Hiaphon harbor and bombed Hannoi. He turned us loose with laser-guided bombs and we destroyed 25 bridges in one afternoon. He didn't try to control our ingress and egress routes. In short, he allowed us to fight the war."
To what end?
sclemens| 9.10.09 @ 10:00PM
Where were you?
S.L. Toddard| 9.10.09 @ 10:51PM
"Where were you?"
Kindergarten, I suppose.
Nixon allowed you to fight the war - to what end?
Garret LeBlanc | 9.11.09 @ 3:25AM
Powell’s eight questions with regard to the actions now planned or under way in Afghanistan Bailey Button Ugg Boots . Had those questions been asked about Iraq in early 2003, not a single affirmative answer could have been given. There was, in the beginning in Afghanistan, a vital national security interest in toppling the Taliban government and killing or capturing the Taliban’s murderous guests, Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida terrorists cheap ugg boots . We toppled the Taliban.
sdfsdf| 5.10.10 @ 5:37AM
M2TS Converter,
M2TS to DVD Converter
Kristopher Huntley | 9.11.09 @ 3:26AM
The enemy today is no longer the enemy that wore an easily identifiable uniform and played by the rules of war. As odd as that sounds cheap ugg boots , yes our enemies of past battles played by the rules of combat, such as uniforms, not using civilians as shields, no shooting at corpsman or those rendering aid to the fallen etc.Well, Al Quieda Bin Laden changed all that. To this new enemy there are no rules only religious fervency to destroy the infidels ugg boots uk .This enemy is smart, propaganda savy to manipulate the mainstream media to portray them as the victim of US imperialism and aggression.
sclemens| 9.11.09 @ 8:18AM
Initially, because I was called. Then to get the Gooks back to the peace table and get the POW's out.
The US military did not lose that war. The politicians did. If you think you will diminish our service because the war was not popular, then stand in line sonny. We Vietnam vets have heard it all before. Live in comfort and rant on. We have our brothers and came back alive. Everything else is gravy.
S.L. Toddard| 9.11.09 @ 9:35AM
"The US military did not lose that war. The politicians did"
Yes, LBJ and Nixon.
"If you think you will diminish our service because the war was not popular, then stand in line sonny"
I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't think it diminishes your service one jot to not win a war you shouldn't have been sent to fight. Soldiers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I believe it reflects shamefully on LBJ and Nixon (and Bush, and now Obama) - not on you - that our soldiers were used for another purpose.
StargazerInSavannah| 9.11.09 @ 10:42AM
I too am a Vietnam Veteran. I remind all you young marshmallow brain liberals that Vietnam was never Mr. Nixon's war. The Vietnam War belonged to Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Johnson. Mr. Kennedy sent me there as a young captain. During most of that tour Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNamara did a really half assed job of directing operations from the White House.
John F. Kerry became one of the hero's of the left with Hanoi Jane and the Winter Soldiers.
The Democrat congress surrendered the effort at the behest of John F. and other traitors.
Mr. Obama and the Democrats made this their good war while maligning Bush.
Looks like Nancy and Harry are prepared to loose this one for John F. and Barack.
S.L. Toddard| 9.11.09 @ 10:53AM
"I remind all you young marshmallow brain liberals that Vietnam was never Mr. Nixon's war"
It became Nixon's war the second he took office, after campaigning on a "secret plan" to end it. Every American life lost after he took office is on his hands.
Still, you are right in implying it was a Democrat war. Or, more accurately, a Liberal one. Much like the two Liberal wars we are fighting now, the Vietnam war was in truth a federal social program writ large and imposed on foreign peoples whom the egghead armchair warrior-bureaucrats in Washington wish to perfect and rehabilitate through government action. And much like the two Liberal wars we are fighting now, the Liberal war in Vietnam was guaranteed to fail.
War is fought to conquer an enemy. We had no intention of conquering North Vietnam. And there is no way to conquer "terrorism".
Bring the boys home to their families, their sons and wives and mothers, and only send them out again when there is a clear and present danger of attack. Let somebody else play policeman/social worker - it is a task beneath our soldiers.
sclemens| 9.11.09 @ 11:54AM
We lived it, laid our lives on the line, lost friends and endured all of the hardships - you saw Platoon and Full Metal Jacket on TV. Yet, you presume to lecture us on the purpose of war and on Constitutional duty? Please, go share your opinions with someone who thinks you have something to offer. You don't have the price of admission for this discussion.
Ron Holt| 9.11.09 @ 12:26PM
S.L. Toddard,
Only those who ate the same rations, slept in the same bush, fought the same firefights, killed the same NVA, and shed bled the same blood, can comprehend what we are talking about here. Of course the politicians wrecked Vietnam! They wrecked the post WWII world, Korea, and now the Mideast. War is always old, decrepit men dithering and equivocating and young men fighting and dying. Too many of my friends are on The Wall in DC and I know not why I am here while they are not. But regardless of anything, Vietnam was, for me, and I suspect for Mr. Clemens and Mr. Stargazer as well, a high honor to have fought and served with that courageous, foul-mouthed, generous, loving, great-hearted band of bothers in that damned bloody country and war. No foreign field was more quintessentially American.
Rich M| 9.11.09 @ 2:08PM
The current ROE are ridiculous. The politicians and senior military commanders who are merely trying to find cover for their decisions come across as "weak kneed" to me.
When these coward "insurgents" hide behind civilians as a shield, the resulting death of the civilians is their responsibility and THE COWARDS will also have to answer for it at the FINAL White (Hot) Throne Judgement --Revelation 21:8.
In the mean-time, we are unfortunately in the complex circumstance of (sometimes) having to bring about peace through war/strength. This is not easy nor pleasant. If we are going to send our soldiers over to these places then give them the authority and means to win.
In the Old Testament (Book of Judges) God made it clear to the Israelites that the people whom they did not conquer as He directed, would become a snare to them.
Thank you for allowing reader feedback on this website.
Richard Baker| 9.11.09 @ 5:27PM
Rules of engagement are essentially restrictions on our forces to ensure the minimum use of our military force. I say kill them all and let God sort it out. Our enemies use our ROE against us to tailor their actions. When you know your enemies capabilities and limitations you have the upper hand. Peace through firepower. sclemens was right. Fight the war or get out.
Richard Baker| 9.12.09 @ 7:47PM
sclemens & Holt:
These fools like Toddard dodge from one idea to another, regardless of your answer. Intellectual flaccidity is their stock and trade. Thanks for your service to this country.
Richard Baker| 9.13.09 @ 7:33AM
Nationbuilding:
Islam is not dissimilar to Bushido as practiced by the Imperial Japanese military. Codified brutality is at the core of Islam. I read the Koran. Islam has been at war with itself and the world since it's inception. Shia live to kill Sunni who hate Wahabi and on and on. Sounds like the Thuggee murder cult in India in the 1830s that the Brits had to destroy. Many parallels. Inconvenient? So be it.
S.L. Toddard| 9.13.09 @ 5:12PM
"Yet, you presume to lecture us on the purpose of war and on Constitutional duty?"
Is that what you think I'm doing? You think I'm lecturing *you* about being a soldier? Either I am being very unclear or you are inferring things I'm not implying. I'm not even sure what you think we are disagreeing about, other than what value Nixon's glove-removing was in the end when, after five years of supposedly gloves-off fighting, we still hadn't won.
"Of course the politicians wrecked Vietnam!"
Yes, firstly by involving America in it at all. Either way I agree wholeheartedly. The disagreement I had was the assertion that somehow Nixon was blameless, and the implication that all the fault and blame should be placed on one side of the aisle rather than on the whole rotten political culture in Washington itself.
"Only those who ate the same rations, slept in the same bush, fought the same firefights, killed the same NVA, and shed bled the same blood, can comprehend what we are talking about here"
I'm not sure we're even talking about the same thing. I am certainly not speaking to fighting *in* a war. I am speaking to the politics, wisdom and necessity of *launching* a war, or wars. Someone else said something like we need to let them fight or get out. My point is that that's likely good advice in a traditional war, but what Obama has us doing in Afghanistan is not that sort of war - we are not there only to conquer Afghanistan, we are there to babysit it - to civilize it, to turn it into some sort of Democracy. To build out of it a cohesive, stable nation - for the first time ever (!).
All the rancor over the sheer inappropriateness of an American citizen opining on his own country's foreign policy (without ever having served in combat) aside, do you or the other soldiers here believe this to be an appropriate use of our military? Nation-building, policing and baby-sitting? What amounts to social work? And if not, if you believe these roles are appropriate for our military to play and should be a large part of their mission in Afghanistan, how can you argue that the gloves should come off when perhaps the major part of that mission is some sort of humanitarian, democratizing nation-building in essence?
What would any of you say to this idea: take the gloves off, allow them to fight, but remove from their mission the nation-building, policing, democratizing/Westernization components. Allow the military to go full throttle and hit the Taliban and insurgents et all with everything they have... and then go home. No good? And do you disagree that it would have been better for us to have left after we toppled the Taliban initially and ran bin-Laden out of the country?
In short, I see a disconnect - a contradiction - between urging them to take the gloves off in a nation-building mission, and I'm asking whether the soldiers here believe nation-building to be an appropriate role for our military to play.
bob| 9.13.09 @ 7:44PM
I, agree with you, in the early eighties, I had a d. i. tell me we're going to Nicarugua,, I said to myself, WHY? I still don't know why but I do know that the guys that are following their duly eleccted officials orders are doing the right thing, remember the oath and contract , we all have our conciesnces to answer to in the long run' these heroes in my eyes have done the right thing and the pols. are damned to the lowest levels of Hell. for having put them in that position.
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 8:43AM
"I beg to differ with you about what is going on in Afghanistan. It is about as far from national building as we can get. We are fighting a well entrenched insurgency."
Yes, we are. We are fighting an insurgency in an effort to build a stable, cohesive nation in Afghanistan. The two are certainly not mutually exclusive.
"So, in conclusion, you are way off the mark."
You have not demonstrated so. That we are facing an insurgency does not negate that we are also nation-building. That fight is part of our effort to build a nation in this graveyard of Empires.
"This was is in our national intersts, it is just, and it is the right war."
It *was* in our national interest to seek to destroy Al Qaeda and topple the Taliban for hosting him. Afghanistan now poses no threat to U.S. national security - no vital U.S. interest is currently threatened by these tribal insurgents in their mountainous hideouts. Our mission there is clear: to cobble together from this rabble of ragged, warlike peoples a stable nation. It is preposterous. Gen McChrystal in a recent report, spelled out "plans to intensify development of Afghan security forces, improve the country's government and refocus economic development initiatives". That is not nation-building? He said ""We will help the Afghan people win by securing them, by protecting them from intimidation, violence and abuse." This is another federal social program, except it means to improve the lives of Afghanis instead of Americans.
123123| 9.15.09 @ 6:29AM
wedding dress factory
wedding dress shops
IgorKA | 10.23.09 @ 3:46PM
I don't like any kind of wars.
Janet | 10.31.09 @ 2:21PM
Great title of this post.
philfl63| 2.21.10 @ 2:00AM
I see this column keeps generating comments. We are civilized men. Our enemy are men, but they are uncivilized and akin to rabid dogs. You can not befriend a rabid dog. It must be killed, or it will kill you.
poptropica| 4.9.10 @ 10:45PM
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. I’ll have a 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
Poptropica You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need