-
UKIP Comes Out Fighting
May 8, 2013 | 15 comments
-
What Will Britain Turn Into?
May 1, 2013 | 31 comments
-
His Queeg Moment
January 29, 2013 | 120 comments
-
High Marks for The Hobbit
January 10, 2013 | 23 comments
-
So, What to Do? Ask Lady Houston
January 9, 2013 | 39 comments
At Large
The Fools’ War
The Afghan campaign is pointless, but something could be saved from it.
We know America and Britain have made a commitment to pull out of Afghanistan by the end on 2014. It is high time some more thought was given to what that means, in particular to the Westernized Afghanis.
It is a mystery why these and smaller countries like Australia continue to waste treasure and the lives of their best troops in a war whose futility has become obvious.
The Crimean War, resulting in such incidents as the Charge of the Light Brigade, had its origins, according to popular mythology which may be true, in the fact that the British Cabinet was drunk at the time. Yet it can be said to have at least achieved a strategic objective in cutting back Russia’s Turkish ambitions.
The same cannot be said for the present Afghan war. It would have made some sort of sense — admittedly perhaps not very good sense — if it had been restricted to a punitive expedition, a quick get-in-get-out affair. Instead, under Obama, it has become vast, unwieldy and purposeless. It is an intriguing question for the political scientist why the war goes on when no one expects victory or anything like it, and when continuing the war does nothing for Western interests. Where, one may ask, is the anti-war movement of yesteryear? Still waiting for the Moscow gold to finance its marches and teach-in?
It does not need to be labored that almost every week brings news of Western soldiers being murdered by Afghanis they were allegedly trying to train. If there was a real possibility of Afghanistan becoming a modern, democratic State, such sacrifices might be justifiable in realpolitik terms (it was worth saving South Korea from becoming North Korea, and worth stopping Communism in Indochina before it destroyed the ASEAN countries). But that is not going to happen this time.
George W. Bush appeared to have some kind of a policy, if not a very clear-headed one. However, Western policy-makers have from the start of the Obama administration appeared to be sleep-walking to disaster with no plans in the event of the near-inevitable Taliban return in force as soon as they leave. The obvious raison d’être for the Western military presence — punishment for 9/11 — ended before the execution of Bin Laden. This was itself carried out in a way — not the fault of the troops concerned — that turned it into a demonstration of weakness rather than strength in a culture where strength is what is respected.
It is not easy to see how killing a few more Afghans with either drone attacks or foot soldiers will do anything to create or strengthen Western democratic institutions there. No doubt on those occasions when he wears a shirt, Mr. Putin is laughing up his sleeve at the spectacle of the Western countries further wasting their strained and cut-down militaries in a campaign that suits Russia’s geopolitical interests very well.
The leading Anglosphere countries have all made deep and unprecedented cuts to their military budgets, making the war in Afghanistan not only a disproportionately heavy drain, but leaving them less able to offer one another mutual assistance. The whole picture is coming to look like a house of cards.
The announcement of the 2014 withdrawal date not only underlines the futility of the Western campaign: it looks like a piece of military idiocy. How difficult is it to grasp as a principle of war not to tell the enemy your plans?
British ex-services chaplain Peter Mullen wrote recently, making what seems an unanswerable point: “Can you imagine Mr. Churchill getting on the phone to Hitler at the back end of 1940 and saying: ‘As you know Adolf, we’re going to surrender in 1943. In the meantime we will engage our troops in this useless campaign and I dare say many more of them will be slaughtered’?”
Further, one of the classic moral requirements for a “just war” is that there be a reasonable chance of success. This is plainly not the case here, now that the withdrawal date has been announced. No one in his or her right mind believes that after the NATO and associated forces withdraw Afghanistan will be a liberal-democratic State.
Unless some kind of miracle happens, the Taliban will come storming back before the last Western plane takes off from Kabul airport. One remembers George MacDonald Fraser’s brilliant novel Flashman, closely based on fact, which tells of the retreat of the British Army from Kabul in 1842, with the tribesmen swarming in and cutting up the rear of the retreating column of the Army of Afghanistan before it was out of its compound. British war artist Lady Elizabeth Butler painted a famous picture of the return of the Army from Afghanistan — one man and one dying horse.
This leads to another vital point, and the one possible justification for continuing the war: what will happen to the Afghans who, have allied with the West and the larger number who, in the Taliban’s eyes, have been contaminated merely by contact with Western ways and education? The puppet president during the ill-fated Russian occupation, Mohammad Najibullah, was castrated and dragged from the back of a truck before being hanged when the Russians were no longer around to protect him. His brother was shot. Eyewitness Terence White wrote of the events the next day:
Next, the religious police from the soon to be dreaded Department for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice appeared on the streets.
Their sole business was punishment. Their first victims were women, whom they beat with wire cables and hose-pipes when found on the street in violation of the Taliban’s first decree, which stated that women could no longer work and must stay at home.
About the Author
Hal G.P. Colebatch’s “Immram,” Counterstrike, is being published by Australian publisher Imaginites.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (68) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Hal G.P. Colebatch
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/21/the-fools-war
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- His Reach Exceeded His Grasp
- How Not To Buy a Fighter
- The Mole in Don Draper
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
Jack in Wi| 8.21.12 @ 7:02AM
10 years of waste in lives and treasure. It would have been far better to put an 50 billion dollar price on Bin Laden's head and try to get him through normal police work and negotiations. Bring these troops home now , not in 2 years. End the wars and close down wll our operations in the Middle East. It is time we developed our own vast energy resources. Let the Middle East be the problem of the Chinese, Indians, Europeans, Japanese, Koreans etc where the energy is needed. They don't seem to think they have to have a lot of troops there. The Arabs have to sell the oil to live.
Aristocat| 8.21.12 @ 7:37AM
The Republicans should be the party of peace, not war...."Peace, peace, to the near and far, and I will heal them." Reagan understood this....We had peace and prosperity through strength and the Soviet Empire collapsed...War-monger, neo-con Bush was a disaster from which we still have not recovered...Romney needs to emulate Reagan, not Bush...
TLP| 8.21.12 @ 7:13PM
So, what's the problem?
My plan would be to PULL OUT of Afghanistan, but let it be known that, if they Fck with us, again?
They won't know what hit'em, because they'll never see it coming.
The days of Boots on the Ground are over, forever.
We will kill them from the Air, The Sea, and from Beneath the waves.
There will be nowhere for them to hide.
"I am become Death. Destroyer of Worlds."
Fck with us at your own risk!
So, let it be written.
So, let it be done.
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.21.12 @ 8:27AM
If we followed your Paulista policies Jack, all Jews in Europe would have long ago been gassed to death. In addition, instead of one Bin Laden attacking us, we'd now have thousands using Afghanistan as their home base. I'm not defending Obama's idiotic and criminal foreign policy, but we had good reason to smash the Taliban, and we have good reason to continue driving them into the ground (with a better US President). Your head-in-the-sand approach won't stop fanatical Moslems from trying to impose their sharia civilization. Weakness only invites attack.
Slacker| 8.21.12 @ 11:37AM
Problem is the endless combat puts us even further in debt. In the end that makes us weak.
I’d say it is the neo-cons who have their heads deep in the sand. We have lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. Before long it seems we will lose in Iran.
And, enough of the holocaust crap. It isn’t a magic word to justify fucked up policy. Unlike us, Israel actually wins wars.
Occam's Tool| 8.21.12 @ 2:02PM
No problem with combat. Problem with NATION BUILDING AND 3 CUPS OF TEA crap. Nation smashing can be very useful, and should be done to Kabul and Teheran. Teach them that it is a mistake to mess with us. Our problem comes in trying to minimize civilian casualties.
Israel wins wars by bashing its enemies, not by appeasing them.
Quartermaster| 8.21.12 @ 3:55PM
Occam, that's an exceedingly ignorant statement. Combat *IS* expensive. Very expensive. In lives and treasure. Israel would disagree with you on this point as well.
While you are at it, perhaps you can tell us the specific targets you would have hit immediately after 9/11.
Slacker| 8.21.12 @ 3:57PM
People like to say our military kicks ass but we lose politically. I say so what? It hardly makes any difference how we lose. Failure is failure.
Nation building is nothing more than neo-con speak for conquer, occupy, and make the place into what we want. It isn't an original concept. All successful offensive wars conclude with nation building (or genocide).
Bushiite| 8.23.12 @ 11:34AM
This kind of Bushtard thinking will bankrupt the US. Furthermore, it has displaced and put in jeapordy the lives of millions of Christians in the Middle East. The Bushtard foreign policy has less to keep the US safe and more to keep military contractors fat. Even Romney-Ryan understand the fallacy and do not directly embrace the Bushtard neocon line.
Mistral| 8.21.12 @ 7:22AM
Bin Laden was nothing but a trompe l'oeil and no real threat at all. While all this nonsense was going on this scape goat was used to permit the USA/UK/NATO politics of war-mongering and threats in various theatres and potential theatres of war. Iraq, Afganistan, Libya, Syria, Iran with possible problems for Tunisia and Morocco had they not made the necessary constitutional changes.
Blair, Bush and their henchmen lied through their teeth to waste trillions of dollars of taxpayers money in pursuing oil-oriented policies of usurpation of the national sovereignty of other nations. This has been handed over to Hussein Obama and his lapdog David Cameron who follow willingly in the charade of "democratisation" and "liberalisation" of the "oppressed" peoples of oil-rich financially independent countries who are being brought to their knees by the very people who built them up.
If you cannot see the hand of evil in this then you will never see it. The USA and UK are the culprits, not the sovereign nation states they accuse. They build up dictators and bring them down according to the dictat of the day and whenever someone cries foul such as Assange then they will go to inordinate lengths to deny the individual the very freedom they hypocritically protest in favour of others. Even the inviolobility of diplomatic premises upheld by the same powers USA and UK can be violated when it suits their purposes.
Will it be any better under Romney and another PM in UK - this is doubtful.
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.21.12 @ 8:28AM
US war-mongering? Hello, 911. Just who attacked whom?
Mistral| 8.21.12 @ 12:48PM
Wake up Mr CVC! You haven't read the real news yet have you?
Skippy| 8.21.12 @ 12:52PM
Truther alert.
Quartermaster| 8.21.12 @ 3:58PM
CVC misses the point. Although, I will posit that Mistral misses it as well.
The real problem is we have a civilizational battle between islam and the west. The west doesn't have the strength of character required to fight the battle. I doubt that CVC has a reasonable target list any more than Occam does. The Neocons on here are big when it comes to talking a fight, but have very little knowledge as to how to wage it.
TrueBlue | 8.21.12 @ 7:23PM
The issue is that we can't strike Islamic targets that would truly have an effect without offending and angering many of our own citizens.
Lacking the will to be ruthless isn't really a lack of strength of character, but when it comes to war it is a definite handicap.
Mistral| 8.22.12 @ 7:09AM
The so-called "battle of civilisations" you claim is a toatl misunderstanding of the real situation. The point is that originally the west sold its soul for oil (before it was territory) - everything has dictated this policy - also, USA and Saudi Arabia are hand-in-hand as they push the petro-dollar to its ultimate end (and demise) while the Saudis fill the west with wahhabi oriented mosques.
In spite of flagrant hypocrisy and contradictions such as USA now in Afghanistan (when they were agin USSR there); freedom of speech for alleged liberator armed militias in Syria but not for Wikileakers, USA and its puppy state UK continue with their nonsensical warmongering as though it was 100 years ago. Add to this the US and UK led assistance to armed militias who have alliances with Al-Q etc and Muslim brotherhood who are slaughtering Chrisitians and pushing them out of The Middle East altogether and we can see that none of what you suggest makes any sense at all.
In the meantime, Russia and China are winning the diplomatic battle by exposing western hypocrisy and stupidity on almost every front. They are right too.
Roscoe| 8.21.12 @ 7:56AM
It may not get better under Romney, but at least we'd have an adult for President.
TrueBlue | 8.21.12 @ 7:23PM
An adult that actually knows how to invest and operate under a budget.
Bushiite| 8.23.12 @ 11:35AM
Do you think Romney will ask for an increase in the debt ceiling?
OP4| 8.21.12 @ 8:06AM
A a punitive expedition is exactly what we should have done. I thought that was what we were doing - until 2004 - when instead of packing up and leaving, be moved in heavy units and tried to re-enact the Russian occupation.
What a pointless waste of blood of treasure.
PCC| 8.21.12 @ 8:08AM
There is no justification whatsoever for another American to be maimed or killed in the AfPak toilet. Our brave troops, every single one of them, should come home, immediately, if not sooner.
Anthony| 8.21.12 @ 8:49AM
Under Obozo our troops in Afghanistan are in mortal danger. There is no purpose any longer for them to be there.
Obozo and his adminstration don't give a rats ass about our troops, and neither does that ingrate, Karzi.
I only hope our military leadership recognizes that situation and has defacto declared that no more Americans will be placed in harms way for the Afghanistan people.
If I were in charge, I'd just turn the green zone into a party zone, keep the troops safe, and let the situation play out until Romney brings them safely home.
Mistral| 8.21.12 @ 12:48PM
They should not have been there in the first place!
CJW| 8.21.12 @ 6:08PM
Since Obama has announced we are withdrawing and have no plans to win, we should withdraw today, immediately, before one more American dies. Obama is sacrificing our military for no reason except his vanity.
BD57| 8.21.12 @ 9:05PM
Agree with this - departure should never be announced, it should be realized.
Telling the enemy "we're withdrawing" makes our people candidates for the 'honor' of being the last person to die for nothing.
cicero| 8.21.12 @ 8:50AM
If the Afghanies want something other than Taliban rule, they will have to fight for it. History has shown that they are willing to fight anyone who enters their space, or attempts to disrupt their way of life. In the event they welcome the Taliban with open arms, and accede to their control, who are we to tell them they can't? Maybe we should have been train and arming the women.
TrueBlue | 8.21.12 @ 7:25PM
Just offer any women who want to leave asylum and see how long the country survives without any women left, heh.
Pecos Pete| 8.21.12 @ 9:04AM
Rules of Engagement under King O prevent USA armed forces from accomplishing anything. We are wasting lives and resources due to political interference in the policies and practices of the armed forces. We lost in Korea, we lost in Vietnam and we have lost in Iraq and Afganistan ... all due to political interference. If we ain't going in to WIN, then don't go in at all.
NedB| 8.21.12 @ 9:23AM
The problem with Afghanistan and our actions there is simple. To much nation building and not enough nation destroying.
We should have been out of there years ago and left nothing but scorched earth in our wake.
solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant (my latin is nonexistent)
Mistral| 8.21.12 @ 12:49PM
USA had no right being there in any case.
Skippy| 8.21.12 @ 12:54PM
The USA has the right to be anywhere we want.
In a world governed by the aggressive use of force, might certainly does make right.
Our soldiers are selfless and brave.
You are a jerk.
aware| 8.21.12 @ 1:46PM
Does any other nation have the right to be anywhere they want? One of my best friends went to Afghanistan 2 weeks ago. You should see what it is doing to his wife and 5 year old child, asshole. And you should see what it's doing to our soldiers. They know they are spilling their blood to cover politicians sorry asses.
Easy for you to beat the war drum when you're not there, hypocrite. Put your ass where your big mouth is and join up. Phuckin' neo con. Worse by far than a jerk.
Occam's Tool| 8.21.12 @ 2:05PM
Aware:
Our problem is not Nation Smashing: it is nation building. And, yes, we have the right to go anywhere and kill anyone to protect my kids. The problem in Afghanistan is that we thought we could civilize vermin. Vermin (the Taliban and most Afghan men) are for killing. That is our mistake. More Afghan civilian casualties = fewer American soldier casualties. Rubble don't cause trouble.
Quartermaster| 8.21.12 @ 4:00PM
It's not even nation building. Outsiders can not build a nation. The minute we leave, whether next week, or 500 years from now, it will fall apart. The ignorance of you types about what makes up societies in the Hindu Kush is astounding.
TrueBlue | 8.21.12 @ 7:28PM
And therein lies the truth of the matter. Because we have no wish to stay and conquer any attempt at nation building is a waste of lives, time, and money.
Get in, blast identified targets to oblivion, and leave. Let them know if they do anything aggressive against us again it'll be total destruction, and call it a day.
aware| 8.22.12 @ 6:11AM
Occam, protecting your kids starts here and the failure is here. Making the airlines fully responsible to civil judgments for failing to secure their planes would go way farther in preventing another box cutter take over than all the armies in the world.
Suppose that to get Al Capone we just carpet bombed the southside of Chicago. Would you say the people who happened to live there deserved to die too? Don't you think they hated being at Capone's mercy? But he had the will and the guns so what do you think they could do?
Ironic that you, a Jew, would dehumanize an entire ethnic group and justify their extermination.
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.21.12 @ 3:02PM
aware, when people join the military, they know this is part of their job. People who marry military people also know that this is part of their job. Same situation with firefighters. They have to go where the fire is because it's their job, no matter how much it might distress their family. Same with the policeman walking a beat.
If you don't want the distress, or want your family to suffer from it, don't join the military. But when you join, there is much honor, as well as sacrifice.
aware| 8.22.12 @ 5:56AM
And he and his wife know that better than armchair generals like you, Vernon. He's not bitching, I am. He joined before the farcical "war on terror" and is career(Major). Did 2 tours in Iraq. But he's not stupid and knows this tour is a complete waste of time and lives.
If you knew the real facts on the ground, as he does, you would agree. His men are demoralized, suicides abound, and all anybody there wants is for their time to be over. No flag waving, no marching bands. Nothing but waste and corruption. And death.
Don O'Brien| 8.23.12 @ 1:14AM
C Vernon, Why do I feel that you prefer to give the honor and sacrifice to others. If you have no one you care about in Afghanistan, it must be easy to say they knew what they signed up for.
Having family there, I know our men are brave, but they don't belong in a war that isn't in our vital national interest. The same could have been said of Vietnam and Iraq.
I find the death of a soldier in Afghanistan heartbreaking, and that his death serves no purpose infuriates me. I also find your smug comments that they know this is part of their job equally infuriating. I doubt you ever served.
BD57| 8.21.12 @ 9:07PM
yes, yes, we understand how you feel about the whole subject ... do you think repeating it over and over makes it any stronger?
JimH| 8.21.12 @ 10:44AM
Afghanistan as drawn on the map exists only in the mind of Westerners. When there is no outside invader/occupier/liberator to occupy the populace, the various tribes and clans happily return to their age old occupation of slitting each other’s throats. I wonder how much the reports of vast mineral wealth in the area have to do with our continued presence. If any attack on the US or Americans anywhere can be shown to have come from there, turn the place into rubble. If it happens again, make smaller rubble.
Bob Grant| 8.21.12 @ 10:59AM
Obama has criminally politicized this war. No doubt. He wants to stay there to appear as a competent commander-in-chief but doesn't want to dedicate the resources to ensure a successful conclusion. For that, he's dangerous and incompetent, and has blood on his hands.
But to what extent are the military leaders culpable?
Cui bono? Isn't it true that it's much easier to move up the ranks when a theater exists and more difficult (if not impossible) when one doesn't?
Could it be that this insane campaign continues because it benefits not only obama (the "tough" leader) but career generals?
Because who here believes handing over weapons to people with a 7th-century mindset only to be slaughtered with same constitutes a winning formula?
This is sheer lunacy.
I would have respected obama much, much more had he simply said "enough's enough" and forced a quick exit plan. As it now stands, the war in Afghanistan is a quagmire, a clusterfarke of epic proportions of which obama owns 100 percent.
Another massive obama failure!!!!!!!!
Dave Williams| 8.21.12 @ 12:59PM
We should give the westernized Afghanis -- both of them -- free airfare out, and then build a wall around the place, throw over small arms as needed, and let the savages do as they will. If that wretched place is really, really lucky, in 2,500 years they will be as ready for self-government and freedom as Athens was 2,500 years ago.
Occam's Tool| 8.21.12 @ 2:06PM
Maybe 3 of 'em Dave. And, again, we have all this nuclear weaponry that hasn't been field tested for a while. Perfect place to do it in.
Quartermaster| 8.21.12 @ 4:01PM
Nah. Build a wall, then fill it with water. The, nuke the Pakis. India, and the world, will thank us.
Houdini| 8.21.12 @ 1:21PM
Apparently the armchair generals have spoken. The only opinions that matter on the subject of stay or go to me are the ones from those who have spent time there in combat as they're the voice of experience on the ground. That being said, as a country we should in the future only commit blood and treasure to those conflicts that we are willing to go all out and win without all of the politically correct BS. Sadly, as it stands now, another people are going to learn the true extent of this country's "committment".
Occam's Tool| 8.21.12 @ 2:09PM
Well, you should review the writings of Colonel Tom Kratman, who has been there and done that. Tom happens to agree with me, and, as Rule of Law Instructor for the Army war College for a while, Houdini, I happen to agree with him.
By the way, the REAL Houdini was a militant Jew who believed in self defense and exposing frauds. I do happen to agree with you that once war is chosen, winning is the only option. I also don't care about Islamic casualties. I think they need to bleed, so they will think about other than slaughter.
Occam's Tool| 8.21.12 @ 2:10PM
Tom was the Instructor of Rule of Law at the Army War College. Tom also thinks we are in a war to the death with Islam.
Quartermaster| 8.21.12 @ 4:02PM
Do you agree with that last sentence? If so, there may be some hope for you.
Houdini| 8.21.12 @ 6:22PM
Thanks OT I'll do that. As an aside, my Houdini is a nickname given to me in the Army some 40+ years ago. You know, back when certain politicians sold out the troops setting a precedent that is apparently still in play today. There are those of us that have been somewhere else and done that.
Bob Grant| 8.21.12 @ 4:07PM
It's impossible to win, at least in the conventional sense, with all the politically correct BS.
Political correctness along with the UN have made it possible to actually win a war; and by that I mean actually destroying the enemy, taking over a territory, and imposing our will. That also means enjoying the spoils of war.
None of this has occurred in Afghanistan and therefore, we should leave. Obama has no intention of winning the war so not a drop of blood should be spilled for him.
Bob Grant| 8.21.12 @ 4:08PM
correction: "...UN have made it IMpossible to actually..."
nathan| 8.21.12 @ 2:36PM
First you can't intelligently discuss Afghanistan without reading the two Ahmed Rashid books, Descent Into Chaos, and the more recent one, Pakistan on the Brink. And for good measure read "Taliban" too. Rashid understands the region better than anyone else. Read his books and come back and chime in. (For those of you who used to live in Asia you remember his columns in Far Eastern Economic Review.)
The "conservative"/republican narrative for decades to come is going to be that BHO "lost" Afghanistan and Iraq. Sorry to tell you this but that narrative is wrong. It was wrong to invade both countries and both wars were lost before BHO took office. We sacrificed all those lives and our principles for nothing.
Delude yourselves all you want. But is Iraq better off today than when we invaded? No. Same for Afghanistan. We should have done some sort of small unit action to go after OBL not invade an entire country. Declaring war on a "methodology" was nonsensical. And in the process our civil liberties are being put more and more at risk with MR saying categorically he supports indefinite detention and non judicial killings of Americans. That's horribly dangerous.
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.21.12 @ 3:06PM
We did not "invade" Iraq or Afghanistan.
nathan| 8.21.12 @ 3:38PM
What would you call it then? For Iraq, 5,000 dead Americans, 100K or more dead civilians, the Christian community, untouched by SH, now totally destroyed, infrastrusture still not back, cities destroyed and not rebuilt. You want to tell us what that actually is? Defeat first of all. But if not invasion how did all that destruction happen? And all for nothing. Bush was wrong as he all too often was. A case can made that he is easily one of the worst presidents in American history. His constant violation of the Constitution, the human rights abuses, his ghastly domestic policies (Plan D, no child left behind, the bail outs, TARP) all of it. It's hard to say a good word about him.
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.21.12 @ 6:27PM
Paulista nonsense....Cindy Sheehan nonsense.
Aristocat| 8.22.12 @ 1:16AM
You don't know what you're talking about...Why do you think the Democrats took over Congress and the White House? Because of the neo-con moron Bush...
Aristocat| 8.22.12 @ 1:15AM
Yes, the invasions were illegal and immoral...Bush was a neo-con moron who destroyed the Republican Party....
Quartermaster| 8.21.12 @ 4:03PM
We certainly did. You really, really need to think before you tinkle those keys.
Mistral| 8.22.12 @ 7:13AM
You cannot be serious about such a ridiculous comment. It was tantamount to an invasion. It was get Saddam at all costs in spite of the fact USA put him there in the first place and then use this as an excuse to invade and impose solutions (to control oil of course).
Damo | 8.21.12 @ 3:14PM
If the Afghanies want something other than Taliban rule, they will have to fight for it. History has shown that they are willing to fight anyone who enters their space, or attempts to disrupt their way of life. In the event they welcome the Taliban with open arms, and accede to their control, who are we to tell them they can't? Maybe we should have been train and arming the women.
Lawrence of Lutz| 8.21.12 @ 6:10PM
No one in recorded history has conquered Afghanstan. Alexander the Great slaughtered everyone in his path going into and returning from Afghanstan and after he was gone nothing had changed. It is like putting your hand in a bucket of water, when you remove it the water returns to the original state. It seems no one reads history, or they think "we can be the first to suceed"
Thom| 8.21.12 @ 7:11PM
The folly of Afghanistan has many parallels to Vietnam despite many who to this day say we won there. If you view "war" as sporting events then perhaps you can make that case but by that standard the South won the Civil War and the Germans slaughtered the Russians on the Eastern Front.
The first and largest problem with AF is the nature of the war itself. We have restricted ourselves to a "defensive" position which leaves our advisories free to pick the time and place of their efforts thereby controlling their loses. This didn't work in Korea or Vietnam why would it work in remote AF? All "wars" are won (or lost) the same way by killing the enemy faster than they can replace their losses and doing that long enough to collapse their efforts. There is no template for this and some enemies take a bit more killing than others. We “fight” from a one size fits all template today. Have we accomplished the basic requirements with 16 million dollar model airplane strikes that kill a hand full with each strike? The last time I checked the Taliban's loses were running about 3:1 and our losses are trivial even by Afghanistan people’s standards. When you take out NATO losses and those that NATO has killed the AF to Taliban ratio looks like a loss for AFers. Somebody is going to win this by time tested means.
Thom| 8.21.12 @ 7:11PM
We lost it in 2001 before the first US boots touched down. To accomplish what was needed to win this in 2001 required both capability and capacity. We had capability but lacked capacity to apply that capability. That left us with just a Recon in Force mission. We chased the roaches away rather than surrounding, cutting off and destroying the 45,000 man Taliban in place. The capacity to do that requires more than political will.
As I've said before to those that say we won in Vietnam, if we had "won" in any military context, there would not have been a 1972 NVA offensive in the Northern Highlands and the NVA would not have been able to stay there till 1975 and eventually push the larger ARVAN forces to defeat. I didn't see the Germans or Japanese recover and eventually overcome their "defeat" in a few months after signing an agreement to end hostilities. War is an ugly business. Our attempt to put lipstick on it just leads to folly. What we are doing currently in AF won't resolve anything. Pulling out won't resolve anything either. The only just cause for war when you have a choice in the matter is to resolve something. You do that by fighting a "war" not by sending 0.04% of your population off to a very remote and difficult place to operate with a humanitarian mission as its focus. No amount of glitter will cover this "turd".
Nina in MA| 8.21.12 @ 8:53PM
The headline says it all, it is pointless..Bring our men and women home from that desert and from being murdered by the very people they are training! How many have to die like that before we get a clue!? Def of insanity...doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result!
Mistral| 8.22.12 @ 7:16AM
Ron Paul was the only one to say it out loud - he asked the awkward question - how does putting hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan at terrible cost to the US [and UK] taxpayer keep USA safe?
Only morons would not know the answer to such a question.
Mistral| 8.22.12 @ 7:18AM
Thank God we had at least two sensible and intelligent public figures on this issue in EU to refuse to accept Iraq as a just war - Jacques Chirac and John Paul II.
Mistral| 8.22.12 @ 7:26AM
Advice - cut losses - get out now and leave Mahomatens to sort out their own probems. There is no thanks or moral justification for violating the national sovereignty of any country. It is time all nations learned to mind their own business and let countries run their own affairs. The UN Charter is worthless otherwise when you have power blocks threatening others for adopting their own particular policies - for example, some do not want abortion; others do not want gay politics; others do not want voting democracy and why should they when you see what hypocrits our own so-called political democracies produce?