The American Spectator

SC Mike| 9.22.09 @ 7:02AM

Git yer T-shirts now:

Global Contingency Operations
Afghanistan Campaign
2001 - 2010
Second Place

Alan Brooks| 9.22.09 @ 2:02PM

Well, anyway, for Toddard to say America has bombed and invaded more nations is like saying the largest and most productive factories cause the most pollution. DUH!
or
The most devious intellectuals are academics.
or
The most dogged libertopian American Spectator bloggers are the most thickheaded.

Melvin| 9.22.09 @ 7:20AM

It is easy to sit an armchair about we should fight the war against the Taliban but as an old saying goes, " Never criticize a war unless you've been there."
The generals are being burdened with too much meddling from the State Dept. and the White House who are both sending mixed signals. "Take the war to the Taliban, no wait, take the war to the Taliban but don't use too much power, no better change that Take the War to the Taliban and ask whay are they're still mad at us. No, no, use this, yea this will work, ask the Taliban why we just can't get along?"
The generals and the troops on the ground are running around like a Chinese fire drill.
We should look at the situation this way, The Taliban are entrenched in and on the ground like rodents, gophers, prairie dogs scattered all over the place. To successfully rid an area of rodents and vermin a person doesn't go in there with a score of weapons blazing, and tromping all over the place, the rodents will just scatter and hide. But along with the neighbor kid and a .22 rimfire rifle ya wait and pick off the little buggers one at a time and eventually they'll be cleaned out.
Same scenario with the Taliban don't go in there with a massive show of force and weaponry all we'll do is scare em off, but go in there with small units and allow the Marines to pick em off one at a time and before we realize it, an area will be cleaned out of the vermin.
By doing this, we present less targets to the Taliban, we lessen vehicle traffic by putting more trigger pullers in the field which takes away from the Taliban the IED threat and resupply by air which also takes away the IED threat.
To put is simply, it is the whack a mole concept. Its might appear to be overly simplistic but it works, not right away but it does work.
This is just the thoughts on an old Marine Grunt.

S.L. Toddard| 9.22.09 @ 8:32AM

"Shouldn't the war effort now be to keep the Taliban from returning to power..."

Why take it for granted that their should even BE a "war effort" now? Does no one realize that America is now a permanent war-fighting state? That every one of our post WWII presidents (with the possible exception of Carter) has been a War President? We are the most powerful country on earth - the lone superpower. We are *less* threatened than any other country ever, in the history of the world. And yet we continue, year after year, president after president, to wage non-stop aggressive war against the rest of the world. How can "conservatives" be blind to this inarguable fact? True conservatives favor a Constitutional Republic. Neoconservatives favor an aggressive, expansive military Empire. Since WWII the U.S. has bombed and invaded more countries than any other nation in the world - and that's not counting the endless proxy wars fought by our client-states. These are simply facts - inarguable.

History will view the post-WWII United States as a conquest-fueled war-fighting Imperialist state, far and away the most militarily aggressive state in the world. It will have no choice - we are. And yet the George H. Wittmans of the world - self-professed "conservatives" - do not question our policy of non-stop, everlasting war, conquest and domination. They do not question whether the most powerful and secure state in the history of the Earth really faces viable threats sufficient to keep it in a never-ending state of war. They do not see peace as something that is favorable - something to be achieved, something that comes *after* war. What comes after war as far as they're concerned is *more war*. That 'war is the health of the state' does not bother them - for they are *statists*, plain and simple. They know war is incompatible with constitutional government but they don't favor constitutional government in the first place, so what do they care?

It is quite simply categorically impossible to be pro-war and anti-state. If you are pro-war, you are a statist - period. If you are anti-statist, then you are anti-war generally, and will only support war as an absolute last resort, after we have been attacked or in the face of an imminent attack. That much is so obviously true that it shouldn't even need to be said, much less at an ostensibly "conservative" outlet.

Alan Brooks| 9.22.09 @ 10:41AM

"far and away the most militarily aggressive state in the world."
No, China is; in weapons, in Tibet, in threatening Taiwan, in proxy wars. it's internal lack of any democracy. China is not a global threat as the USSR was, but it s a threat.
And you still wont admit after all this time that the casualties the egomaniacal, bungling LBJ caused in Vietnam from '65 to Tet were more than what Bush caused from '01- '08. At least Bush was no egomaniac.

Todd, it's not that you are necessarily incorrect, it is that you regurgitate Chomskite for-public-consumption idealism. As long as people are human there will be wars. War is as old as the human race.
I know it is hard to concentrate today with all the confusion, it is very difficult, but let's try, okay?

S.L. Toddard| 9.22.09 @ 10:51AM

“No, China is; in weapons, in Tibet, in threatening Taiwan, in proxy wars. it's internal lack of any democracy. China is not a global threat as the USSR was, but it s a threat.”

Whatever “threat” China poses, it has been less militarily aggressive than we have since WWII. We have bombed and invaded far more countries than any other nation in the world in that period – far, far more than China has.

“And you still wont admit after all this time that the casualties the egomaniacal, bungling LBJ caused in Vietnam from '65 to Tet were more than what Bush caused from '01- '08”

What are you talking about? Of course I will. Over 50,000 American soldiers died in Vietnam, and untold millions of civilians. Bush’s war crimes have not yielded nearly that many deaths.

“Todd, it's not that you are necessarily incorrect, it is that you regurgitate Chomskite for-public-consumption idealism. As long as people are human there will be wars. War is as old as the human race.”

What an odd thing to say. An utter non sequitur. I’ve never claimed that war will cease to exist. I’ve only noted that America has bombed and invaded far more countries than any other nation since WWII, and argued that America need not wage never-ending, aggressive, state-empowering war. We are by design a Constitutional Republic, and the program for endless war that you endorse is categorically incompatible with limited government. You cannot logically be in favor of never-ending successive wars while also being in favor of limited government, as the former precludes the latter.

Alan Brooks| 9.22.09 @ 11:04AM

Nah, the Soviet Union did worse with its proxy wars, its continuous subversion. In the beginning they foolishly 'believed' in classless 'societies'; later they were acting in their own national interest-- it was in their interest.
Todd,
doesn't matter what you write, you will never know any peace in your lifetime save for spiritual escapism.
The globalization of depravity has just begun. But it, natch, depends who you are: if you are v young, strong, and rich, you'll do alright. The future belongs to the sovereign individual; everyone else will stumble through.
Or die.

Alan Brooks| 9.22.09 @ 11:17AM

This is your mistake:
"[]and argued that America need not wage never-ending, aggressive, state-empowering war."

As a Superpower it does. Only Marxists and libertopians think anymore that the situation will improve for this generation. If America stopped being a superpower, then China would supersede the US.
You trade one superpower for another. The USSR dissolved, China took its place. America moved up in the global rat race.
"You cannot logically be in favor of never-ending successive wars while also being in favor of limited government, as the former precludes the latter."

Here you are correct. The inference is:
large intrusive govt will stay indefinitely. Perhaps until the next century. I don't know-- and neither do you.

Alan Brooks| 9.22.09 @ 10:57AM

"That much is so obviously true that it shouldn't even need to be said, much less at an ostensibly "conservative" outlet."

AS isn't merely conservative, it is also rightwing, some are libertopian, some are even neoConfederate. AS isn't one 'thing'; the cosmos isn't one 'thing'.
You mean well, Todd, but you are a naif. I've seen more people destroyed by naivite than anything else; you can treat depression v. well now, even bipolar, but no treatment exists for naivite'.
You want to be more optimistic but there is no basis for it.
People care more about their position, their status, in society than anything else. "Status is all there is", said Tom Wolfe. Everything else is fleeting.
And "time erodes gratitude more quickly than beauty" (Mario Puzo).
Men will always control women, because they use violence to do so.
Using the threat of force usually works.
You can live longer but there will be nothing to live for as globalization intrudes anomie and depravity into every pore-- nowhere to hide.
Win some you lose some. Gain longer life, lose something else.
Aside from spirituality, everything is winning and losing; Darwinist rewards and Darwinist punishments.

This isn't just philosophy, it is day to day life, too.

John II| 9.22.09 @ 1:42PM

Yo Toddard. Pardon me for butting into this stimulating discussion, but I need to point out that your use of the term "history" is an instance of what the Greeks called "hypostatization" and what the copycat Romans called "reification." "History" is not even a univocal entity, much less a thinking person. A rereading of Aristotle would make all this clear to you.

Yet the particular illogic you commit with such apparently self-assured abandon has sparked a thought to which I have given intense notice for a period of time stretching to as many as 22 seconds, and I have drawn some conclusions. I should like to share those conclusions:

1. The term "liberotopian," if I understand it correctly as used by your interlocutor, probably fits well, but I prefer the term monomaniac. My dear Toddard, do you have any interests in or ideas about the world OTHER than your obsession with America-as-warmonger? I have returned to the fray after a 12-week absence, and what is the one called Toddard still talking about?
Evil neoconservatives! Demon Bushes! War--making Republican gasbags!

2. My literary sense of your rhetoric (plus a few passing factoids of interest: who on earth would remember the name of the Patrick Swayze character in "Red Dawn" except someone who would have been in his late teens or early 20's in the 1980's--and I pass over your obvious disregard for the existence as well as the genius of Abbott and Costello) I say my literary sense tells me that you are a generation or more younger than I. (I usually say "than me," but I'm showing off in my lecture mode.) In other words, you are quite young enough to have been one of my former students; indeed, I was learning from Abbott and Costello long before you were even a glimmer in your daddy's eye, Toddard, and I believe that condition warrants a tad more deference and respect on your part.

In other words, whaddaya mean telling me to quit farting around? How DARE you use that kind of language in the presence of my typing fingers. What kind of "conservative" can you claim to be when you exhibit such wanton disrespect for your elders? Only lefty snits behave in such a fashion toward the older generations. Only liberals pretend that age and tradition carry no wisdom.

Toddard, if your monomaniacal discourse is any indication, I have FORGOTTEN more than you have ever learned. I demand respect!

Failing that, send money.

S.L. Toddard| 9.22.09 @ 2:15PM

"in the presence of my typing fingers"

Haha. Honestly, I have never understood what's funny about Abbot and Costello. I just don't see humor in there, to be honest. They run into things and hit each other... I don't know. And it's not my generation - I know people my age who find the Stooges hilarious. I just don't see how.

Also, neither "libertopian" (or "libertarian" for that matter) nor "monomaniac" accurately describe me. I consider myself a conservative constitutional republican and an advocate, generally, of military non-interventionism, which is to say using war as a *last* resort. The reason I write about warmongering so much is because I'm writing to warmongers so often. The article here, to which I responded, presupposes the need continue fighting in Afghanistan. I question that presupposition.

And again with the Classics? Quit farting around!

Alan Brooks| 9.22.09 @ 2:28PM

and I question the presupposition that you need to attack Bush continuously as if he were Pol Pot himself.
You protest too much.

John II| 9.22.09 @ 2:38PM

Well, some of their flicks were intermittently lame, I admit. But "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein," apart from the fact that it was released in 1948 (a bumper year for American greatness and filmmaking both) is directed and performed to perfection. Consider the following lines:

Lon Chaney, Jr.: "When the moon is full, I turn into a wolf."

Lou Costello: "You and forty million other guys."

They don't write lines like that any more. Those were the good ol' days, when men were men and a five-dollar cigar cost a nickel. I saw "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" when I was barely six years of age, munching contentedly on a 10-cent (large size) bag of popcorn. I have since seen it more times than I have fingers and toes to count, mostly after the advent of the private VHS technology.

Toddard, I am old enough to remember asking my older sister what "television" was when our daddy was attaching this weird giant coat-hanger thing to our chimney. (I'm still not sure what the hell television is, exactly, but let it go.)

There. That wasn't hard, was it? I mean, talking about something other than: evil kaka naughty neoconservative-Bush-warmaking wham-wham.

So what's your opinion about the Cnidian Aphrodite of Praxiteles?

You cut me to the quick, Toddard. I cannot help farting around, for I am first and foremost a man of letters. . . . Well, second and thirdmost, anyhow. I am first and foremost a husband and a daddy and a granddaddy--which is to say, I'd best quit farting around and get back to work.

Nice ranting with you.

S.L. Toddard| 9.22.09 @ 2:58PM

"So what's your opinion about the Cnidian Aphrodite of Praxiteles?"

I don't have one, really. I really do wish I'd studied the Classics more than I have. I wish we'd never abandoned the Victorian idea of what a gentleman should be, and know.

John II| 9.22.09 @ 4:57PM

Well--yeah. But don't forget. Those Victorian gentlemen were bred for the civil oversight and maintenance of the Empire, frequently by uncivil and warlike means whenever the natives grew restless.

No one has ever accused me of being a gentleman, Toddard. I work for a living. And yet, if you're as young as you seem, there are still many decades left for you to dip your toes into the Greats. Hell, I'm pushing 70 and I still do it all the time.

That's how I make my living. Which is rather nice. I make my living doing the same thing I'd do if I were an idle gentleman. And every time I prepare a chunk of Homer or Aeschylus, I discover something I never noticed before.

It's never too late, Toddard--and rather absurd to bemoan not having done more of what you claim you should have done when you were even younger. (And consider what babes in the woods we both are if it's true, as I believe it most surely is, that we are immortal.)

And so, my elderly advice is that you set about the task now of learning Greek and Latin, so you can spend the rest of your days brushing up on both. And thus farting around.

S.L. Toddard| 9.22.09 @ 6:16PM

Thanks, John.

Alan Brooks| 9.22.09 @ 2:21PM

Toddard possesses depth, but no breadth. The reason I digress off into tangents, sometimes irrelevancies, with him, is because of that lack of breadth. If you stay with the topic at hand in discoursing with Toddard, you get nowhere; you have to branch out.
He has no Churchillian grounding. We'll admit Bush is a bad person, but his enemies are worse. America is a bad nation, but its enemies are far worse.
And you are right, obviously, that Toddard is obsessed with demonizing Bush. Geo F. Will, as usual, got it just so; "Bush's opponents [enemies] are viscerally, not logically, against him."

S.L. Toddard| 9.22.09 @ 2:49PM

"Bush. Geo F. Will, as usual, got it just so; "Bush's opponents [enemies] are viscerally, not logically, against him."

That's a ridiculous generalization on par with Carter's contention that the opposition to Obama is "racist". It's a meaningless smear intended to stifle debate.

That's not to say that a good portion of the "opposition" wasn't due solely to his being a Republican. Remember the anti-war Left? Where the hell are they now, now that *their* president is occupying Iraq, escalating the conquest of Afghanistan and expanding his wars into Pakistan? Remember the pro-Rule of Law left? Where are they now, now that Obama is retaining the vast majority of Bush's domestic spying regime and abusing the State Secrets privilege? Remember the anti-torture Left? Where are they now, now that their president has embraced rendition, and - after making a big show of attempting to close Gitmo - maintaining a gulag in the legal-black-hole at Bagram? I'll tell you where - they're waiting for the next Republican to win the presidency, when they will start caring about these things again. Much like "small gov't" "conservatives" who only "rediscover their principles" when a Democrat is in office, and it will hamper his agenda.

The fact is that when member of party (Y) implements or promotes policy (X), it is (Y) that determines whether most people object or praise, rather than (X). I, however, am NOT one of those people. I oppose Obama's anti-constitutional, un-American agenda now as much as I opposed Bush's then. You wouldn't know that so much here, though, because there's no pro-Obama nonsense for me to take issue with, and most of the anti-Obama arguments here consist of personality based, substance-free hackery - ACORN, birth certificates, Marxism, whatever. And when that's not the case, the arguments are often cynical and absurd - i.e. Bush-worshippers condemning fiscal irresponsibility, Big Government, constitution-trampling etc.

Alan Brooks| 9.22.09 @ 2:49PM

and btw,
Geo F. Will is no neocon.

But he doesn't despise Bush as a war-criminal "monster".

Alan Brooks| 9.22.09 @ 2:53PM

"and most of the anti-Obama arguments here consist of personality based"

Again, your calling Bush a war-criminal "monster" is personality based.

S.L. Toddard| 9.22.09 @ 2:58PM

I call Bush a war criminal for the same reason I call LBJ one - they both comitted war crimes. For all I know he is a nice man.

Margie| 9.22.09 @ 7:32PM

"I call Bush a war criminal for the same reason I call LBJ one - they both comitted war crimes."

-Bush committed war crimes? You lie!

Alan Brooks| 9.22.09 @ 9:46PM

"I call Bush a war criminal for the same reason I call LBJ one - they both comitted war crimes. For all I know he is a nice man."

if-- and I say if-- Bush is "nice" then what does 'nice' mean? smiling? how could Bush be a monster at the same time? So people, at least men, pretend to be 'nice', but they are predatory, they are really trying to destroy?
Makes sense. So how then is Bush any worse than any other man?

Kevin, meath| 9.22.09 @ 8:32AM

The 'answer' to a hell hole like Afgahistan, is not easy. You can be 'nice' and 'humane' in waging war and you may not be defeated but you wont 'win'. However you can not simply go in there and get the 'bar stewards' will all force , great you free the village from the evil Taliban and it is left a smoking ruin full of dead villagers to 'enjoy' their new found freedom.
You need to have a 'police' in place but they can not be left to be targets you have to (as the old 'Devil dog' above says) go after them. Thats how the British defeated an insurgency in Malaysia.
Why not recruit thousands of 'police' from the Gurkhas in Nepal, outstandingly brave soldiers, perfect for small unit fighting?

Louis Jenkins| 9.22.09 @ 8:52AM

You cannot successfully prosecute a war with one arm tied behind your back. Rules of engagement do not work. You kill the enemy, his family, his relatives, his livestock, burn his house, mosque, barn, salt his fields and wells. Only then will you have victory. Rules of engagement only waste soldier's lives, and if you have those rules, it is better to bring those soldiers home. Obviously Obama and his supporters, by pursuing this policy, want to waste soldier's lives and funding, and has no interest in a victory. Our servicemen are in a no win situation.

Margie| 9.22.09 @ 3:25PM

"Obama and his supporters, by pursuing this policy, want to waste soldier's lives and funding, and has no interest in a victory. Our servicemen are in a no win situation."

Sad but absolutely true. And he will have to stand before God and give account. And as for victory, Obama has actually said he doesn't like the word. What a disgrace this man is!

Doctor Right| 9.22.09 @ 10:10AM

No war exists that a Democrat can't reflexively screw it up...

Son Of Sam| 9.22.09 @ 11:52AM

History will record that Bush was able to win the "unwinnable" war in Iraq, while the TelePrompter in Chief will lose the war that both he AND liberal Democrats both claimed was "necessary", while accusing Bush of "sidetracking" us in Iraq

stay strong until freedom dawns
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com/
Son Of Sam

Richard Baker| 9.22.09 @ 10:52AM

Doctor Right:
Agreed.

Alan Brooks| 9.22.09 @ 11:21AM

"What are you talking about? Of course I will. Over 50,000 American soldiers died in Vietnam, and untold millions of civilians. Bush’s war crimes have not yielded nearly that many deaths."

So you admit LBJ was worse than Bush? At this rate, you'll someday be willing to admit Carter was also worse than Bush. You are progressing.

Alan Brooks| 9.22.09 @ 11:24AM

Todd, there is hope for you.
Someday you'll be willing to admit LBJ, Nixon, and Carter were worse than Bush.

Brent Hartman| 9.22.09 @ 12:21PM

LBJ, Nixon, and Carter all respected the Constitution about as much as George "The Constitution is just a Goddamned Piece of Paper" Bush. They are all one in the same.

Someday, when being rounded up under the Patriot Act, you may see the damage to the Constitution that took place under Bush's administration.

" A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few." (James Madison)

S.L. Toddard| 9.22.09 @ 11:44AM

"So you admit LBJ was worse than Bush?"

In that respect, sure. If we had to rate war-criminal monsters that sat in the Oval Office, I'd put LBJ ahead of his ideological brother-in-arms, GWB.

Son Of Sam| 9.22.09 @ 11:56AM

to mre. Toddard

When sharia law is finally imposed, I'm very sure that the fellows who chop off your head will take account of your brave patriotic dissent, and they will make sure to use a very sharp blade. That way, even though you're an infidel, your death will be quick and painless

stay strong until freedom dawns
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com/
Son Of Sam

S.L. Toddard| 9.22.09 @ 12:03PM

"When sharia law is finally imposed"

Yes, that's a very, very realistic possibility here. That's something we should be very afraid of, since its so very likely. I put it somewhere between Unicorn Uprising and Leprechaun Invasion on my list of Sure-To-Happen Catastrophes.

"muggedbyreality"| 9.22.09 @ 12:26PM

Todd -- The palpable roots of sharia law are being established in areas of Michigan. I don't think anyone has spotted unicorns, but people waiting for a cab with a bottle of wine have been known to be slighted by taxi drivers.

And don't we wish the leprechauns would come a-calling at the UN instead of some of the heads of some of these states that loathe Republics.

Brent Hartman| 9.22.09 @ 12:41PM

Ah, so if it's wrong for a Muslim taxi driver to not pick up a passenger holding a bottle of wine, due to the taxi drivers religious beliefs, then it would also be wrong for a doctor opposing abortion to refuse to perform that procedure as well, due to the doctors religious beliefs. Right?

Having experienced religious persecution my entire life (I'm a fundamentalist Mormon), I know just how well so-called conservatives respect the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the Constitution.

Nick| 9.22.09 @ 1:28PM

Mr. Hartman,

Apples and oranges.

If a Moslem taxi driver is working for someone else, he has no "right" to tell his employer he won't perform legal tasks when told to do so.

Most doctors are self-employed, so they can refuse to execute abortions based any grounds they want, religous or otherwise. If they are employed by a hospital that orders them to kill babies, their option is to quit.

If the Moslem cab driver is self-employed, he can refuse to pick up whoever he wants.

This is called freedom. There is no "right" to employment.

S.L. Toddard| 9.22.09 @ 1:48PM

"If a Moslem taxi driver is working for someone else, he has no "right" to tell his employer he won't perform legal tasks when told to do so."

Of course he does. But then his employer has the right to fire him.ass.

S.L. Toddard| 9.22.09 @ 1:49PM

Hm. I originally wrote "fire his ass" and tried to change it to "fire him" but messed up.

Anyway, Nick, I'm not calling you an ass there.

mugged| 9.22.09 @ 2:48PM

Actually, I didn't say the Muslim taxi driver SHOULDN'T respond to his or her conscience, driving by the Michigan-er with Cabernet in hand. I just said the roots of Sharia law are making some headway into our culture -- and shouldn't be placed on par with Unicorns and Leprechaun Invasions.

I believe that the moral stance of physicians (who have taken the Hippocratic Oath) and other health care workers who object to performing abortions-on-demand or dispensing birth control pills should be respected. And compassionate Catholic hospitals should NOT BE FORCED BY THE GOVT into performing acts that would create moral grievances.

Madison and Co. must be turning in their graves to see what we've done to their hard-won documents.

Alan Brooks| 9.22.09 @ 2:41PM

I wish Mormons would leave me alone.
They push too hard when witnessing.
If someone says 'not interested', then a Mormon ought to always back off rather than perseverate.

Brent Hartman| 9.22.09 @ 4:45PM

L.D.S. missionaries are often rude and overbearing, but they have nothing to do with me. I'm a fundamentalist Mormon. I don't have any say in the way other sects of Mormonism conduct themselves.

Now I must get back to making wine, as where I live, it is not legal to purchase the fermented fruit of the vine. Those poor people in Michigan may not be able to catch a cab while holding a bottle of wine, but I have to drive an hour to get to a county that's not dry, before I can even purchase a bottle of wine.

Brent Hartman| 9.22.09 @ 12:31PM

I have more fear of my government than I do some ragtag bunch of terrorist in the middle east. I, like the terrorist, just want the U.S. government to leave me alone.

Our government has killed more Americans than the terrorist could ever hope to kill. For that matter, drunk American drivers kill more Americans in one year than Islamic terrorist have killed in my entire life. Perhaps our troops should be occupying the compounds of Anheuser-Busch. :)

S.L. Toddard| 9.22.09 @ 1:32PM

"I have more fear of my government than I do some ragtag bunch of terrorist in the middle east."

I'm sorry but such sensible and quintessentially American sentiments have no place here at AmSpec. If you do not accept that socialist-fascist-marxist-Islamo-Nazis are perpetually on the verge of imposing sharia law in the United States, and that the only thing that can prevent them from doing so is a never-ending succession of aggressive state-empowering wars then you, my friend, have no business here.

Either get with the program and start panicking about propagandized boogeymen or get out.

Margie| 9.22.09 @ 4:08PM

SL Toddard says~
"I'm sorry but such sensible and quintessentially American sentiments have no place here at AmSpec. If you do not accept that socialist-fascist-marxist-Islamo-Nazis are perpetually on the verge of imposing sharia law in the United States, and that the only thing that can prevent them from doing so is a never-ending succession of aggressive state-empowering wars then you, my friend, have no business here. Either get with the program and start panicking about propagandized boogeymen or get out".
-I'd love to see you stand in front of a few of our troops out on the battleground and say that.

Brent Hartman| 9.22.09 @ 5:18PM

Considering that in the primaries Ron Paul did better with fund raising amongst active duty military than John McCain, and since Ron Paul takes essentially the same position as S. L. Toddard, I'd have no problem saying that in front of the troops.

I still have hope that there are many active duty military that take their oath to defend the constitution seriously. I'd just prefer that they defend the constitution here at home instead of the middle east. Our government is the true destroyer of the constitution. Not a bunch middle-easterners with ak-47's and RPG's.

I just don't buy this crap that our troops are over there protecting our freedoms in the very war that has been used to justify the taking of our freedoms here at home. Only a fool would fall for the trap of giving up their liberty for protection from a bunch of arabs playing militia in the middle of the desert half a world away.

The master always uses fear to control the slaves, and the slaves almost always comply.

Margie| 9.22.09 @ 6:00PM

"Only a fool would fall for the trap of giving up their liberty for protection from a bunch of arabs playing militia in the middle of the desert half a world away."

Oh, is that all they're doing? I see.

What a bunch of convoluted crud!

S.L. Toddard| 9.22.09 @ 6:32PM

Such insightful arguments, Margie. You must be extremely bright and well informed.

Margie| 9.22.09 @ 7:36PM

Need I say more?

Alan Brooks| 9.22.09 @ 2:44PM

Then you are making progress. You don't hate Bush's guts, you merely detest him.

Dean| 9.22.09 @ 1:05PM

I recently watched a DVD of one of my favorite Westerns, Robert Aldrich's Ulzana's Raid. A U.S. cavalry patrol pursues and fights an Apache war party in the desolate mountains of Arizona. One can see some similarities with the current campaign in Afghanistan. Perhaps one should study the history of the Indian wars and possibly gain some insights into how to fight the Taliban.

fundamentalist| 9.22.09 @ 1:23PM

"It is well understood from the experience of the last several years that the creation of a cohesive national Afghan military force has little chance of coming to fruition in any reasonable time frame."

Wait just a minute! Back up! Earlier you wrote:

"Our aim was to force the Taliban to relinquish their hold on the government. This has succeeded..."

Keep in mind that "WE" didn't force the Taliban to relinquish anything. The Afghan Northern Alliance forced the Taliban out with the aid our a few special forces and air support from us. So are you now saying that the guys who forced the Taliban out in the first place can't keep them out without massive training and supplies from us? That doesn't make any sense at all!

Afghan militias forced the Soviets out and then the poorly trained Northern Alliance pushed the Taliban out. I see no reason why they can't keep the Taliban out if they want to with no more than a little help from our special forces and some air support. All our massive build up in troops does is 1) create more targets for roadside bombs and 2) help Taliban recruitment and 3) irritate the local Muslim population. Our leaving will hurt Taliban recruitment and reduce irritation of the locals.

We forget that this is a religious war. The Muslims "faithful" are fighting against the infidels, us. Even if the Aghan locals publicly voice support for US troops, in their mud huts at night they curse us because we are not Muslims. Not being Muslim, we will never win the hearts of minds of Afghans no matter how much blood our boys spill there or how many billions of dollars we waste on re-building the country. The Afghan people would much more prefer aid from other Mulsim countries, such as the oil-rich Gulf states.

Even better, let Muslim nations with huge militaries, such as Egypt, do the advising and air support in our place. After all, we bribe Egypt with $2.5 billion each year to be our friend. We should get something out of that besides the constant stream of anti-American articles in the Egyptian governtment controlled press.

crookedwren| 9.22.09 @ 3:02PM

Whoa. I'm not sure all Afghans are busy in their mud huts cursing US troops. Perhaps. It's possible.

Still I remember the celebrations Afghans were enjoying when the US first dumped the Taliban. They were playing music on the street, getting photos out of hiding, rejoicing that people were no longer getting hands chopped off while the rest of the town watched. I saw pictures of Afghans laughing and enjoying themselves. I remember images of Afghan women celebrating.

Did I dream that?

In Horse Soldiers, the view seems to be that the people side with the strongest force. And there are Afghanis fighting bitter battles against the Taliban. Why? They're Muslims, aren't they?

Besides -- why did we head for Afghanistan anyway? What precipitated that action? Was it just boredom on the part of our military? Commercial greed hoping to reap some benefit from the rugged Afghan soil?

Oh, yes, that's right. Wasn't it -- 9/11???

Pardon me if I have the audacity to hope that our soldiers are accomplishing something worthwhile. Naive, I suppose.

And I'll tell you one thing, I pray that we don't get laws in place that force women into burkas, out of jobs, taking away our drivers licenses. Seems along the lines of that Leprachaun Invasion of Toddard's, but still -- I know I don't want to live that way.

From what I read many Muslim women agree with me.

Brent Hartman| 9.22.09 @ 5:59PM

Some evil men want to force women into burkas, and other evil men want to force women out of burkas. It's the force that is the problem, and the U.S. is just as guilty in forcing it's will on arab women as the arab men are.

Why don't we just leave them alone and take care of the tyrants that rule over us. The tyrants that tell us what we can and cannot do. The tyrants that regulate every portion of our so-called free society. I pretty much have to ask for permission for everything I do, and you are worried about some woman's religious beliefs in Afghanistan?

What in the hell did 9/11 have to do with the average Afghani? I think you could make a better link with Saudi Arabia than you could with Afghanistan.

Margie| 9.22.09 @ 7:41PM

"It's the force that is the problem, and the U.S. is just as guilty in forcing it's will on arab women as the arab men are."

What a disgusting thing to say! So you are actually comparing our fighting men and women in the Unites States Armed Forces to Arab men who beat and in some cases kill their women? You are a sick human being.

Brent Hartman| 9.23.09 @ 1:22AM

Margie,

Are you suggesting that our men and women in the United States Armed Forces never beat, and in some cases kill Arab women? Are you really suggesting that the United States does not force it's will on Arab men, women, and children?

WTF do you think armies do if not for beating, killing, and imposing their will on others? It's what they do. The question is whether we have a valid reason to be doing those things in the middle-east.

Why have we been meddling in middle-east affairs for decades? Do you like the government meddling in your life? If the meddling got too intrusive then wouldn't you do something about it? Oh, of course not. You're a supporter of big government. You love government intrusion. Government so big that it can't even be contained within our own borders. Government so big that it covers the whole world. I sometimes forget about the new world order that George H.W. Bush talked about in his speech on 9/11/90

We should use military force to get all nations to comply with the will of the corrupt politicians in this country. Right, Margie? After all, government does everything so well. Why would foreign policy be any different?

Margie| 9.23.09 @ 5:12PM

Brent Hartmen says:
"Are you suggesting that our men and women in the United States Armed Forces never beat, and in some cases kill Arab women? Are you really suggesting that the United States does not force it's will on Arab men, women, and children?"

You suggest so. I say it is disgusting for you to do so. Now go read rdman's post. I have nothing more to say to you.

Brent Hartman| 9.24.09 @ 11:01AM

What's disgusting, Margie, is people that advance war when they have no idea what war entails. War is the killing of men, women , and children. War is forcing you will upon others. It's disgusting for you to imply otherwise.

NavyBrat| 9.22.09 @ 8:00PM

Leave it to a Chamberlain-esque surrender hound like Obama to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Afghanistan. 4 of our United States Marines died last week due to the lethally restrictive new ROE in that theater. See, we can't run the risk of harming a hair on a civilian's head, according to the touchy feely pukes running the show these days. So, bearing that in mind, the powers that be have denied the use of artillery support when there is even a short & curly hair's chance of hitting civilian dwellings. So as a consequence, when these Marines came under fire, no artillery support.

For the master of moral equivalency, SL Toddard, time to pray for socialized medicine to get passed. Maybe, if you're lucky, you can get that rectal-cranial inversion problem check out. Tell me again, who did the attacking on 9-11? Where did those people live? I'm not going to debate the "validity" of reasons for our fighting other conflicts, but in this instance, your short memory of the events that brought us TO that rathole country in the FIRST damned place is appalling. Go check out some YouTube footage of the people who chose to jump to their deaths rather than burining alive. Then come back here & tell us about how horrible it is that we're over there. It'll get more horrible over there if we send more of our men & women over with one hand tied behind their backs due to the idiotic ROE issued from this outfit in the White House.

Margie| 9.22.09 @ 8:19PM

Thank you so much for fighting for our country, NavyBrat. I for one appreciate it more than I can begin to say. Thank God for all of you fighting men and women. It's because of you that the pompous ass Toddards get to spout their Lefist bilge. I wish there were more of you guys flooding the place in here. I may not have the fancy schmancy words they have but I do know what I'm talkin' about. God bless you, Sir!

NavyBrat| 9.22.09 @ 8:40PM

Margie. I'm only a 30 yr. old burnt out chef who now toils in an office. It is to my Dad that your thanks should go. He was a retired Navy captain with 20 years in. He served on the USS Saratoga in Vietnam. He passed on in 2003 after a hard fought battle with cancer.

He told me what it was like to be called "baby killer." The only time I ever saw my Dad cry was when we went to the Vietnam Wall. He turned & told me that the only thing wrong with the monument was that it wasn't built to face Congress. It's short sights & memories that allow things like that to happen again. Surrender monkies like Toddard would have us pull out of Afghanistan posthaste, thereby invalidating the sacrifices of all those who not only died fighting there, but those who died on 9-11. Just like in Vietnam when the Marines were ordered to abandon Khe Sahn after beating back a hellacious siege at the hands of the NVA.

"Not to know what has been transacted in former time is to be always a child. If no use is made of the labors of past ages, the world must remain always in the infancy of knowledge."...Cicero

Margie| 9.23.09 @ 5:15PM

You are awesome, and your Dad is awesome. I say is, because he still lives up in Heaven with all the other brave men and women who shed their blood for this country's FREEDOM. God bless you. I love all of them!

bobmontgomery| 9.22.09 @ 10:11PM

So tired of hearing things like "exit strategy" and "defining victory". The exit strategy is to exit victorious and victory is when the enemy signs surrender documents. Can we make that any simpler for any of you Senators, and globalpolicyinstitute wonks out there? The only burning question is from whom will we accept surrender documents. We will not accept them from, e.g., the "American Taliban" guy or bin Laden's driver. And since we know that al quaida is not monolithic and there are other groups, it looks like what we are going to have to require is a convention in Mecca. Not forthcoming? Well, its going to be a long haul. Somebody has told you people that before.

American Super Cum Patriot| 9.23.09 @ 1:57AM

Obama's Afghan war? You people have the shortest memories in the world. I think you all may be, seriously, mentally retarded. I fear for the mental health of the writers of this internet rag.

thomas| 9.23.09 @ 10:17AM

I come to this discussion late.

Afghanistan was never supposed to be a long term nation-building occupation. It was supposed to be a relatively quick hammering of Al Quaeda and their Taliban hosts, and that only after the Taliban refused to reliquish the Al Quaeda leadership.

Unfortunately, most of the AlQuaeda and Taliban leadership escaped to Pakistan, where they, especially the Taliban had support. So, the US pressured Pakistan to take action against the Taliban in their country, while attempting to keep them from re-taking control of Afghanistan.

The geography of Afghanistan, coupled with the antagonistic tribal society there make it virtually impossible to unify the country. Democracy is largely unknown and largely unwanted there. The Taliban, through ruthless dependence upon force of arms, were able to control only Kabul and part of the eastern region of the country.

The United States can not "win" in Afghanistan, simply because the goal there continually changes. When the Taliban and Al Quaeda crossed into Pakistan, the bulk of American and Allied trops should have been rotated out, leaving Spec Op units there to continue hunting Al Quaeda and their allies in Pakistan. This did not happen and so the US is stuck with a war that is going to continue until a way is found to declare victory and get out. For once the US leaves, it is only a short time until Afghanistan returns to the way it has always been and democratic central government disappears.

rdman| 9.23.09 @ 10:30AM

Forty+ years ago, my generation volunteered to serve our country in Viet Nam. Fifty-eight thousand (58,000+) of us died in vain and thousands more remain permanently disabled as a direct result of the Government Class of that era… appeasing, placating government lawyers/politicians who were more concerned with pacifying the suppliers of war materiel to North Viet Nam.

With our hands tied during mortal combat operations and despite government malfeasance and their willing media accomplices, our magnificent young military men never lost a battle. This includes the valiant and incredible humanity of our military nurses who cared for our wounded and gave comfort to our dying. While the spineless politicians micro-lawyered and caved to political expediency, we died in vain and those who survived continue to suffer in vain.

Millions more were slaughtered in the killing fields by the power vacuum caused by the incompetence and criminal negligence of that era. These government gangsters with law degrees will forever live and die with blood on their hands.

Historians, philosophers and centuries of history have clearly documented that appeasement, placating, political correctness, expediency, compromise and consensus-seeking is simply the Absence of Leadership, Statesmanship and Honor.

With their perverted culture of destruction and mayhem, along with their main stream media accomplices, they continue their shameless tradition to attack our military during a time of military conflict. In the face of this despicable conduct, 150,000+/- of our magnificent young military men and women struggle in the Middle East under absurd politically expedient limitations that are reminiscent of the mortal combat conditions imposed during the Viet Nam conflict.

This is an incomprehensible criminal absurdity of the worst order, beyond spoken words!

Margie| 9.23.09 @ 5:30PM

rdman,
Thank you so much for what you said.
"[T]he present Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes." --Alexander Hamilton, letter to James Bayard, 1802
The Left is the political foe. Obama has said he considers the Constitution obsolete. He just voted "present", from what I have heard, to sending the additional 40,000 troops to Afghanistan that was recommended by a General. He is demonstrating what you say above. More of the same. I wish that some of the people in here would go and read the Founders. Maybe it would wake them up.

fundamentalist| 9.23.09 @ 1:57PM

crookedwren: "I'm not sure all Afghans are busy in their mud huts cursing US troops. "

It's not fair to lump all Afghans together because they are a diverse people, but having lived there many years ago and lived in the Middle East, I can assure you that the majority hate us. Of course, the Middle Eastern way is to be hospital to strangers for a while, and to put on a good public face even if it's the opposite of what they really think. They're going to show respect in public for someone as powerful as the US, if for nothing else but to prevent retaliation. It's an ancient Middle Eastern tradition: show respect and unity in public; stab them in the back in private. They don't see that attitude as being hypocritical or bad in any way as we in the West do. They see it as being wise.

philfl63| 9.23.09 @ 8:33PM

It was Gen. Patton who said, "The lowest form of life is a politician. The lowest form of politician is a liberal democrat".
I liked Ann Coulter's suggestion to kill them all or convert them all.

Margie| 9.24.09 @ 12:34PM

Yikes, philfl63! Ann was referring to wild tribe of murderous men in the past, if I'm not mistaken. Not Lib Dems. Although I can understand the emotion.

Ray| 9.24.09 @ 10:26AM

I think Truman once said “He may be a bastard, but he’s our bastard.”

Sometimes you have to admit there are no good guys and pick your bastard.

"Afghanistan" consists of tribes who hate and distrust each other only slightly less than they hate and distrust us. We need to stop trying to “unify” them.

Instead, we should pick a tribe, preferably a fairly strong one, then raise a military force from it. Give it leave to rape, loot, pillage and murder their neighbors but with a special emphasis on anyone or any village or any town that provides support or sanctuary to the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Provide them with the weapons, training, technical and artillery / air support to give them dominance over their rivals. Then wind them up and let them go.

With a little luck and planning, we won't suffer any casualties we care about, but the Taliban and Al Qaeda and their supporters will be destroyed.

And, maybe we'll even end up with a “unified” Afghanistan, too. After all, if there is only one tribe, the country will probably be unified...

BTW: This should be combined with a war on Taliban and Al Qaeda money. We should hunt down any one who donates money to the Taliban or Al Qaeda, or to a "charity" that supports them, or runs such a charity, or otherwise handles money for them. No arrests, no trials, just a midnight visit from some very nasty people, a bomb in their car, or a PGM through their bedroom window at 3 AM.

Margie| 9.24.09 @ 12:37PM

"Give it leave to rape,"

Ray, how about we leave that one out?

Nightfall Ugg Boots| 9.25.09 @ 3:04AM

Many people would regard these Boots as “unfashionable” or “uncool” because the boots look big and odd. Some have even called for a boycott on wearing these boots due to their distaste for its look.Classic Short Ugg Boots Despite all of this, the Ugg boots has been enormously successful and is probably here to stay.