The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Loose Canons

Neo-Conning Us Again

By on 1.10.13 @ 6:10AM

In Afghanistan, we cannot recommit ourselves to a “counterinsurgency” strategy that has already failed.

President Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai will meet later this week to discuss the terms of American withdrawal from the twelve-year long war in Afghanistan. Obama is moving forward with his scheduled removal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

The American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen, reportedly wanted to keep the more than 60,000 U.S. troops in country through this year’s fighting season. Nevertheless, the White House is going ahead with a withdrawal schedule that will reduce the force this summer and to leave only about 25,000-30,000 troops there by spring of next year, and as few as 3,000-4,000 by the end of next year.

That’s too much and too fast for the neocons. They who devised the “nation-building” strategy — and its military implementation, “counterinsurgency” — are rebelling against the idea.

In a Wednesday Wall Street Journal piece, two top neocons — Frederick and Kimberly Kagan — argue that we have to leave substantial forces in Afghanistan indefinitely or we will have wasted a decade of war. The Kagans were close advisers to Gen. David Petraeus when he was the commander in Afghanistan. They believe we need to recommit ourselves to the “counterinsurgency” strategy that has already failed.

The Kagans define success in Afghanistan as driving al Qaeda from the nation and preventing its return. They point out correctly that the “global al Qaeda movement” is headquartered in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and is home to the largest concentration of regional and global Islamist terrorist organizations in the world.

The neocons attribute this to the fact that Pakistan “does not effectively govern, police, or control” the large area on its side of the border. They say that the Afghan government, though fighting hard in the region, hasn’t succeeded in controlling the larger area on its side of the border.

From this, they conclude that we can’t withdraw from Afghanistan lest we allow al Qaeda’s return. They believe the Afghanis won’t allow the Taliban to return to power. What nonsense. The Taliban will re-impose its rule easily by force and al Qaeda will be with them when they do. The Kagans admit that the counterinsurgency’s goal was not to build Afghan forces so that they could function without our help. In essence, that is an admission that counterinsurgency requires us to fight forever in Afghanistan without doing what is necessary to truly defeat our enemies be they al Qaeda, the Taliban, or the Pakistanis. As long as Pakistan supports the Taliban and al Qaeda, they will fight on.

The neocons won’t face the facts. Success in Afghanistan was never about driving al Qaeda and the Taliban out and preventing their return because the former was possible but the latter is not. Success meant defeating those enemies wherever they were, and by focusing on nation-building and counterinsurgency we diverted ourselves from that goal. In fact, our counterinsurgency in Afghanistan was designed in comprehensive disregard of the criteria for a successful counterinsurgency. It was, and is, a con job.

The person who best understood modern insurgency warfare was David Galula, a French officer who learned it while serving in China, Algeria, Greece, and Indochina. As Galula wrote in his seminal Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice, for a counterinsurgency to succeed the counterinsurgent forces have to be able to offer the population two things: security and a cause that the insurgent cannot and which is more attractive to the population than the insurgent’s cause.

Galula didn’t live to see us ignore his theory and strategy in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, a huge nation with tribally divided population, there was never the prospect of having enough U.S. troops there to provide local security. Hundreds of thousands could be sent and wouldn’t be enough.

What cause does the U.S.-Afghan counterinsurgency offer that could possibly be more attractive to the Afghan population than the pure Islamism which al Qaeda and the Taliban — with the dedicated assistance of Pakistan — promise? None whatever. Islamism is so deeply embedded in Afghan society that nothing can be more attractive to the tribal leaders and their peoples. Our nation-building/counterinsurgency strategy never dealt with these hard truths. The neocons conned George Bush, David Petraeus, and Barack Obama, who merely compounded Bush’s mistakes.

Afghanistan is much the same now as it was when the British were driven out after their defeat in 1842, as it was when the Soviets were driven out in 1989. And it will be much the same, and probably worse, after we leave.

The neocon commitment to their nation-building con job seeks an endless commitment of American troops and funding. They argue that if we withdraw now, the Afghan forces would be “immobilized on its bases and unwilling to patrol.” As Bing West proves in his book, The Wrong War, that is the case now even with American troops joining the Afghans in too many fruitless missions. When we leave, the Afghan forces will melt back into the population, fading quickly at the first sign of a Taliban offensive. Those who don’t abandon the fight altogether will join with the Taliban and fight for their return to power.

The neocons say that Pakistan doesn’t govern its tribal areas to their liking. But Pakistan’s view of success in Afghanistan is very different from theirs, and in it Pakistan is succeeding. Pakistan’s support for al Qaeda and the Taliban is notorious and dedicated. To expect Pakistan to do otherwise is ignorant and other-worldly. If we wanted to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban, and prevent their return to Afghanistan, we would have had to compel Pakistan to change its Islamist view of the world. That is beyond our power to do, so the neocons have just ignored that fact.

We have been defeated in Afghanistan by Islamism, by our misapprehension of the theory of counterinsurgency warfare, and by Pakistan’s Islamist commitment to al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. You can follow him on Twitter @jedbabbin.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (229) |

Jack in Wi| 1.10.13 @ 7:00AM

Is this a satire? Mr Babbin is trying to call other people Neocons? Anyhow Afganistan was lost the day we went in to nation build. Alexander the Great could not conquor Afganistan and that was 1000 years before Islam came into existence. Ron Paul was right again! We should of used the Constitutional tool of a letters of Marque and Reprisal against Bin Laden and other terrorists. The idea behind that was to go after pirates. Pirates like terrorists have no nation. They should be treated the same. Terror is a tactic not a country. Use police work and offers of massive rewards to get the terrorists. If we offered 100 billion for Ossama alive or dead it would have been peanuts compared to the 10 trillion ,the so called war on terror has cost, so far. Bring the troops home now. Why waste anymore blood and treasure? The War on Terror has made 500 terroists into hundreds of thousands. We now have Al Quada in dozens of countries from Libya, Syria, and Iraq to most of theMuslim world. The Kagan's deserve to be thrown in jail for the rest of their lives with their pal Jonathon Pollard. Who in their right mind would listen to them anymore? They are over here because we are over there. The terrorists didn't follow us home from Vietnam anymore then they followed the French home from Indochina and Algeria.

GobBluthe| 1.10.13 @ 7:26AM

The terrorists followed us home already and live among us. Babbin is correct however......for once. Afghanistan was won in 2003. It was lost by staying too long. The neocons are in someways diversity liberals. They believe all cultures are equal or st least equal enough to embrace Jeffersonian Democracy. They recoil at the notion that most cultures are inferior and incapable of ruling themselves in a civil manner. But we must be prepared to continue waging war on Islamists. But only to the extent we kill them, not civilize them.

Jack in Wi| 1.10.13 @ 7:46AM

They came over here because we were over there. Islam was a backwater until we kept poking these people in the nuts. There were no Islamic terrorists until we went over there period. There won't be anymore once we leave them alone. It is none of our business how these people govern themselves. The Kagans and their ilk are 5th columnists for a foreign power. That power is all they care about. They have never ever been right about anything, period. The Republican Party and Conservative Movement have been destroyed listening to these vermin. It is time these rats were thrown out of the barn.

C. Vernon Crisler | 1.10.13 @ 10:47AM

The came over here not because we're over there but because we are over here. They hate our Constitution and the principles of the Declaration almost as much as modern liberals do.

Jack in Wi| 1.10.13 @ 11:23AM

Baloney: They could care less about us and our constitution. For 100 years we have been sticking our noses in their business. For the first few decades it was benign with educators and business men. The British and French were the bad guys. We took over from them after WW2 and stuck a colony in their midst and we have become the enemy. The solution is to get the hell out and stay out. It is their oil and their lands. We have no right to be there. It has cost us trillions to back Israel, The arab kleptocrats, and the oil companies. We are broke because of it.

C. Vernon Crisler | 1.10.13 @ 2:56PM

Jack, when they defined the term naive in the dictionary, they must have had you in mind.

GobBluthe| 1.10.13 @ 3:23PM

Problem with your leave them alone theory jack is Muslims kill Christians in Africa and Buddhists in Thailand. Neither group could find Israel on a map much less supports Israel. Muslims waged war on the USA in the early 1800s. The Indian PM had it correct when he said "You cannot compromise with Islam, you cannot coexist with Islam, you csnnot cooperate with islam. Islam seeks to destroy everything that is not Muslim.

In jacks world, Muslims are just aggrevied Amish

GobBluthe| 1.10.13 @ 3:15PM

They've been here since the 1940s. Read Leaning Tower. Also they are immigrating here regardless of our policies over there.

markenoff| 1.10.13 @ 4:42PM

Tell that to Thomas Jefferson. Have you ever heard of the Barbary pirates?

Doctor Right| 1.10.13 @ 8:04AM

Jack in Nuremberg,

We conquered Afghanistan is one month. The only reason it hasn't stayed conquered is because our politicians lack the political will to kill as much of the enemy as possible.

You dislike Neocons? That's OK...they dislike Neo-Nazis like you.

Occam's Tool| 1.10.13 @ 11:41AM

If we are not serious, we should not stay in. Me, I'd have nuked the Taliban areas when the attacks started, or DNA identified the families of the terrorists and killed them all---they are Tribal, adjust your attacks to what hurts them.

But we should never have nation built, because they are vermin, like Jack.

C. Vernon Crisler | 1.10.13 @ 10:44AM

The minute Jed referred to "neocons" -- as if there is really such a group of people -- I tuned out. This is a term made up by anarchists and anti-semites, and is almost a code-word for "Zionist."

Quartermaster| 1.10.13 @ 6:03PM

Your statement betrays a basic political ignorance. Neocons are the hawkish wing of the Dimocrats that got run out of the party by the McGovernites. Many happen to be Hebrew, but a lot of them are not and are not Zionists. The idea that Neocon is a code word for Zionist is an old canard that does not stand up to scrutiny.

The Necons then infiltrated the GOP and has managed to make themselves part of the GOP establishment which is most poisonous to teh country. The Necons, like it or not, are a large part of the reason Zer0 is still POTUS.

Time to grow up Crisler and actually look at reality.

markenoff| 1.10.13 @ 4:38PM

10 trillion? Even the cost of war website only pegs it at 1.4 trillion. During the same time we've spent over 5.2 trillion on welfare.

BleedingHeartKneeJerkLIBrooks | 1.10.13 @ 4:49PM

Jack is correct. We only stay in Ashcanistan to save face, everyone knows if we pull out, there's genocide and we get the blame-- so we pull out temporarily next year; send in an 'International Team' controlled by the US but underwritten by the Chinese; and as long as China forks over the dough, we can remain in Ashcanistan as an 'International Force' (American) willing to be picked off one at a time.

BleedingHeartKneeJerkLIBrooks | 1.10.13 @ 4:52PM

..."we can remain in Ashcanistan as an 'International Force' (American) willing to be picked off one at a time."

Think of it Shop Class for Afghanis- they learn to build IEDs in their High Schools.

Mike W| 1.10.13 @ 7:05PM

I agree that this must be satire. Babbin was and still is a neocon. He proved it with his absurd last paragraph where he basically says that Hagel/Obama are going to kill us through weakness. Silliness.

Babbin was a rabid dead ender supporter of the Iraq debacle. I used to listen to him on the Jerry Doyle, a radio talk show host who has actually come to his senses on the stupid wars we fight. 5 or 6 years ago he was spouting the same tired nonsense that we could not "cut and run" out of Iraq. Doyle sings a different tune these days.

TLP| 1.10.13 @ 8:03AM

Enough already, with the Neocon crap. Just say: JEW, and be done with it. You don't like Jews? Fine. You don't like Jews. Say it. Stop hiding behind Semantic Skirts, like a coupla Queers.

Jack is right. (I will take a shower as soon as I'm finished, here) If it were me? We'd a been outta there, yesterday. Not one more American Life wasted on this Human Garbage. Get out, and leave a Million Land Mines behind, and a Warning.

We will never set foot here, again. We don't have to.

If you EVER mess with us, again?

Like Clint Eastwood said in the flick: Coogan's Bluff............"You won't believe what's happening to you, even while it's happening".

Besides. You guys love Dying. Your whole life revolves around Dying. You even said it, yourselves: "We will win, because we love Death, and you love Life".

Then we don't have a problem.

We incinerate you. That works for us. You get what you Love. Everybody Wins.

Isn't that right, Jack?

Von Mises Jr| 1.10.13 @ 8:28AM

This is so easy to solve. America is populated with "Julia's" and by so-called coincidence we have "Winston" Schmidt in Eastasia right now, I believe, negotiating with the North Korean's.
"Big Brother" Barry should simply send word to "Winston" that he can declare the end of war with approval of the "Ministry of Peace" and get back to his regular job at the "Ministry of Truth" making inconvenient facts disappear down the "Memory Hole."
By March, everyone will have forgotten about Afghanistan and it will have disappeared from the records. Repeat after me "There never was nor is there now a war in Afghanistan. We have always been at peace with Eastasia."
Now get back to work.

Jack in Wi| 1.10.13 @ 8:52AM

You watch too many movies. These people are not coming over here if we leave them alone. Just like we didn't go over to England once they left our shores in 1783. Lets mind our business for once. 100 years of war and interference in the world have left us bankrupt and hated all over the world. Say no to foreign entanglements and yes to peace. Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan and and me have been proved right. The neocons and their pals here are always wrong on everything.

Von Mises Jr| 1.10.13 @ 9:06AM

I don't watch movies Jack. It is a book. It is called "1984." You should try reading some time. It is good for the brain matter.

Jack in Wi| 1.10.13 @ 11:29AM

We are in 1984 moron. We were led into it by Bush Cheney and now Obama.There was endless war in 1984 between 4 or 5 regions of the world. I can't remember all the names. Oceana was one region. Endless war for no sane reason is right out of 1984. They schredded the Constitution and now they want to take away our guns.

loulou| 1.10.13 @ 12:25PM

Gawd, what an idiot he is. He doesn't read.

Von Mises Jr| 1.10.13 @ 12:35PM

That is why he watches movies! He can't read.

TLP| 1.10.13 @ 1:06PM

He reads all the time.

He reads Mein Kampf all the time.

Drunken Sailor| 1.10.13 @ 1:44PM

He got the audio book version.

Quartermaster| 1.10.13 @ 6:08PM

Who got the "Patriot" act passed. Who set up the gate rape dullards in TSA?

You may not like it, but Clint is correct here. The GOP has set up the apparatus of tyranny and don't think upcoming administrations won't use it, or that the GOP won't keep voting for it. If there are people here that are showing they are naive, it ain't Clint. He may be wrong about other things, but he's right here, and TLP and other knee jerk idiots may carry on, but Clint is right.

Jack in Wi| 1.10.13 @ 9:19PM

I told you before I am not Clint. He has been gone for months. He used to put up massive links and he had a great cut and paste library. I have never put up any links and don't know how to cut and paste or link for that matter. We agreed on a lot but not everthing. His language was too abusive for my taste. He certainly was far better then people like TLP, Occam, and Dreck.

BleedingHeartKneeJerkLIBrooks | 1.10.13 @ 6:11PM

"He reads all the time.
He reads Mein Kampf all the time."

Doesn't matter if Jack reads Mein Kampf, or Green Eggs and Ham. He was right, we were wrong. In a few decades, all our military bases will be closed down.

BleedingHeartKneeJerkLIBrooks | 1.10.13 @ 6:12PM

Why? because our empire is TOAST.

Jack in Wi| 1.10.13 @ 9:14PM

I read 1984 and Animal Farm before most of you birds were even born. I also read his book about when Orwell was on the skids in Paris and London and his book about being a bureaucrat in the Burmese police. All his books were good. Loulou sweety, you can't fool me. Your one liners are stale hasbara. Are you Occam or Dreck?

Occam's Tool| 1.10.13 @ 11:43AM

Jack: they are already here and are coming more and more.

Wait and see, Cheesehead. Pat Buckman is coming. And you are the cause. (Not Buchanan, Buckman. Look up the reference.) "Wake Up, America!"

nathan| 1.10.13 @ 9:30AM

Sow the country with a million mines. Innocent civilians, kids tend to be the primary victims of those mines. A 5 year old getting his leg blown off doesn't bother you? Why not?

When you talk like this sorry you're no better than they are. The vast majority of these people just want to be left alone. Every study every survey taken every where says that. And you talk as if they are all suicidal borg jihadists bent on taking over the world. There's no evidence to back you on that. NONE Cite a credible source. One.

And again I will challenge you a challenge you've never met to give me a single quote from any Founder that supports the policy you enunciated above. I have page after page of Madison quotes. I can't find ONE that supports what you propose. Yell at me all you want call me any name you want but just one BLOODY time quote a Founder that supports you. ONE TIME. Silly movies don't count.

The Constitution (have you even read the document?) places limits on the actions we can take in defending the country. It limits the government. Remember that next time you write something.

TLP| 1.10.13 @ 10:27AM

Please, you're breaking my heart.

I don't give a Purp about any of'em. Anymore than I give a Crap about ANY of the Germans or the Japanese that we FIREBOMBED or NUKED.

When will you open your eyes to What these people are. They're a Cancer. They're a Human Pandemic. They don't add anything to the betterment of mankind, unless you think that Blowing up Pizzerias, Weddings, Funerals, Churches, Schools and Hospitals for a living, is a good thing.

They shoot little girls IN THE HEAD for Championing Schools for little Girls.
They throw ACID in the faces of little Girls, as they try to go to school.
They cut little Girl's Noses off.
They Sell little Girls to Old Men. Sometimes as young as 8 years old, and for 2 Goats, and a Chicken.
They Strap Explosives on their kids, and send them out to Blow Up other people's kids.

I trust I'm not Boring you, nathan.

So, like I said: I don't care about them. The sooner the whole place is turned to Glass, the sooner there will be Peace, and not until.

You know when you'll open your eyes, jack@ss?

When your severed head hits the floor, and starts rolling across the floor, like Danny Pearl.

He used to think like you, and now he's Dead.

If he thought like me, he'd still be alive.

Go figure.

nathan| 1.10.13 @ 12:38PM

Change a few words in the post you wrote above and I can make a case for gun control right? A small minority of a very large group, a very small percentage of that of that group misbehaves and you want to blame the entire group and strip them of their fundamental rights. It's wrong when the Brady does it and it's wrong here. Again you keep saying "they" all the time. The vast majority of these people do not do these things, never have never will and broadly do not support these actions. The vast majority of these people pose no threats to us.
We cannot do as gun controllers do and say here's a crazy out of control person who is .0001 percent of the group and then say he's representative of the whole now let's as the writer for the Des Moines register put it outlaw all of them. There's not much difference between your position and his.

We treat individuals as individuals. If they as a person harm us, threaten to, defend according without violating the law, the Constitution, etc. But if they aren't bothering us leave them alone.

I say constantly and note this, I'm not going to the umschlagplatz quietly. NO. Neither me nor those I care about. But at the end of the day Paine was right, to secure our own rights we must defend the rights of those we hate. We have to. We have to stand up for the Padillas here. I won't support genocide for any reason. I won't support torture for any reason. The path you propose here sir leads straight to those camps. It simply does.

TLP| 1.10.13 @ 1:09PM

Actually, we treat our Enemies as a GROUP.

Always have.

Think: Sherman's March to the Sea.

Again: Grow Up.

Quartermaster| 1.10.13 @ 6:13PM

Sherman's march to the sea was a war crime even at the time he did it.

Arguing with an idiot like you is like talking to the wall. You don't like Purp, but you are no different at all. Your ignorance falls in the same realm as his. You are no conservative. You would fit right in with leftists like Hitler or Stalin. Reason is something that is totally divorced from your existence.

You clearly learned nothing from your suspension. Your language is no different, and your posts are just as slipshod as they ever were. The ban hammer needs to come down on you, badly. I'd put Purp and vtwin in the same category as you, and they need banning just as you do.

JmsA| 1.10.13 @ 6:39PM

"I tell you, war is Hell!" -William Tecumseh Sherman

TLP| 1.10.13 @ 10:34AM

We Firebombed Dresden and Hiroshima.

We Bombed Berlin into the Stone Age.

We burned the Japanese out of their Caves, in the Pacific.

We NUKED Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If all of these are allowed?

Which limits are you referring to, my Stupid friend.

Grow Up.

TLP| 1.10.13 @ 11:41AM

Where did nathan go?

Occam's Tool| 1.10.13 @ 11:44AM

Tim: You are a brilliant man and Patriot. Thank you for existing. That's all.

loulou| 1.10.13 @ 12:25PM

Ditto.

TLP| 1.10.13 @ 1:11PM

That's nice of you to say.

Especially now, seeing as I Cut Lawns for a living, and it's Winter, and that's pretty much all I'm doing these days.

EXISTING.

Quartermaster| 1.10.13 @ 6:18PM

Many things can be said about TLP, but if you think he's brilliant, then no one needs you practicing medicine anywhere.

Just one point - there was no military reason for the bombing of Dresden. The only reason we dropped the second nuke was to tell Stalin that we had more than one. All we had to do to end the war in Japan was do what we did in the end, recognize the Emperor and not try him as a war criminal. That was the only condition the Japs made in their peace feelers nearly a year before. Instead we killed over 10,000 men on Iwo and Okinawa. Anyone that gets the war fuzzies, or thinks such casualties were worth it when the war could have been ended earlier is dumber than a fool. He's TLP, and most likely Mr. Tool as well. I won't even put an honored name like Occam in front tool for the moron that thinks TLP is a brilliant "patriot."

nathan| 1.10.13 @ 12:22PM

Sir: Know the name Max Hastings? Really good writer on WWII. Read "Bomber Command" sometime. What we tend to forget but shouldn't and he devotes a chapter to this (I read a lot, sorry) is that contrary to what we understand about WWII, those deliberate attacks on civilian targets were VERY controversial first from a strategic perspective (on that he's really good) but also from a moral perspective. There were those in the Eighth Air Force for example who worried that they were going to stand trial as war criminals after the war, and a lot of discussion went into that. Given the primitive nature of the weapons being used, we can maybe cut them some slack. Maybe. LeMay's fire bombing of Japan was based, somewhat correctly on the premise that 30-40 percent of Japanese industry, relevant to war effort was small mom and pop operations in residential areas. To properly deal with Japan's ability to fight the war, that industry was going to have to be dealt with and fire raids were the most effective way of doing so. But even there moral issues were raised at the time.

You will note today that the use of drones are VERY controversial. The civilian losses in Pakistan is causing considerable outrage especially since many of those losses are children. There's a feeling that on cost versus benefits increasingly it's not worth it any more. We're creating more enemies than we're killing. I get your points, but context matters and to a fair extent what we did then won't fly now.

TLP| 1.10.13 @ 1:21PM

They did what was neccessary to WIN A WORLD WAR. They purposefully went after Civilian Targets to break the will of The People, and bring their Leaders to their knees.

Again: Sherman's March to the Sea.

It worked. Go figure.

By Nuking Japan, we saved 1,000,000 lives that would otherwise have been lost in an all out Invasion of Japan. And in the process, saved Millions of Americans who would never have been BORN. Maybe, even YOU.

I agree about the Drones.

I would much prefer Massive Artillery Barrages, and Carpet Bombing with Napalm.

Occam's Tool| 1.10.13 @ 2:06PM

Hastings is a not fully comprehending the Islamic issues involved.Try writing to him, as I have, sometime, and reading his answers. Read Andrew Roberts instead.

Nathan, if you can justify fire raids on Tokyo, everything else fades away on your arguments. I can do so because my view is different from yours, but don't go hoity-toity on torture and being "above this behavior" and then state the Tokyo firebombings were justified. They are more abusive than waterboarding, Nathan.

You ever visit a burn unit or go to Medical School?

Keep in mind that I am in FAVOR of the FIREBOMBING of Tokyo and the use of Nukes in that war as well. That's why waterboarding doesn't bother me. Note my definition of torture below: permanent damage inflicted. All else is just psywar.

Occam's Tool| 1.10.13 @ 2:09PM

Sorry, "is not."

By the way, I prefer arguing with Nathan to Jack. Unlike Jack, he has a brain, and his arguments flow from his initial positions. That the initial positions are wrong, and "precious" is where I go on the attack with this. But at least there are arguments.

Again, Nathan: justification of firebombing of innocents invalidates YOUR arguments, not mine. I work off the egg breaking omelet theory of warfare.

markenoff| 1.10.13 @ 4:47PM

Now that Obama is using drones to kill "terrorist suspects" and their families it's not controversial at all.

markenoff| 1.10.13 @ 4:49PM

More civilians dies in the battle of Manila, many of them women and children bayoneted to death by Japanese soldiers, than died in both atomic bombings combined.

Quartermaster| 1.10.13 @ 7:16PM

Nathan, you'd be well served to ignore TLP and the Tool. The manure storm they stir up is characterized by either ignorance, or a BAMN attitude that would suit either Hitler, Stalin or Mao.

LeMay himself had serious doubts about the fire bombing, He, in fact, said that if the US lost the war that he would stand trial as a war criminal. It wasn't til after the war and touring the burnt out residential areas and saw the large number of machine tools in the ruins that he had no further doubts.

The Nukes were not dropped to end the war with Japan. That was done by holding the Emperor as inviolate, the only thing the Japs asked in earlier peace feelers. The war could have been ended nearly a year earlier if they had done what they did in the end. It later came out that the nukes were dropped for the benefit of the Russians and it scared them to death. That kept them in check until Kim's little adventure in 1950.

JmsA| 1.10.13 @ 6:40PM

And they all had it coming, for they did much worse to the victims of their evil excesses.

JmsA| 1.10.13 @ 6:42PM

The above was in reference to TLP's response To QM.

KennesawJack| 1.10.13 @ 10:53AM

Nathan, no, I'm not here to bash you, just ask a question. Having read the Constitution several (actually, many) times, I find no instance, other than the requirement that only Congress can declare war (which the War Powers Act violates with impunity because it allows the President to "make" war any damn time he or she chooses for at least 60 days without Congressional approval) in which the Constitution limits the actions we can take in defending the Country. It doesn't say we can't nuke 'em, it doesn't say we can't slaughter every single one of our enemies, it doesn't say we have to play by a set of rules that tie only OUR hands and not those of the folks that want to kill us. What AM I missing?

CJW| 1.10.13 @ 11:34AM

KJack
You are correct that OUR Constituion does not does not restrict how we wage war, only that Congress should authorize the war. Nathan and Jack have too much time on their hands, and are obsessed only with OUR country defending itself.
Maybe they need to ask whether the Koran/sharia law restricts setting off bombs in cafes, theathers, and other public places. They believe only we infidels are restricted.

nathan| 1.10.13 @ 12:10PM

Start with Ken and CJW first: Broadly the Constitution whose foundation rests on the second sentence of the unalienable rights doctrine basically elevates individual rights over group rights call it what you will. It places strict limits on what the government can do even in time of war.

Building on that we signed on to Geneva before WWI. At war crimes trials in Germany and Japan we made definitive statements that defending your country or not, there were things you simply could not do. PERIOD. Even if the laws of YOUR country allowed it. In fact you had an affirmative obligation to ignore laws/orders that were clearly illegal. Certainly where individuals are concerned, once they lay their guns down, you can't touch them, humiliate them, cause them extreme pain even without leaving marks. That's VERY clear. We, not others, established those precedents are bound by them.

Ken your reference is MAD is understood and people have been discussing "just wars" for centuries." But note that there's a fairly broad consensus for only using enough force necessary.

For both of you: On a battlefield, there's one standard. But off that battlefield, you can't as you said sir "slaughter every single one of our enemies" if they aren't armed. And yes, it's irrelevant what THEY do. Our standards have to be higher than that. But we don't have to descend to their level to win. We never have to.

TLP| 1.10.13 @ 1:23PM

Afghanistan IS A BATTLEFIELD.

Seriously, what's wrong with you?

Occam's Tool| 1.10.13 @ 1:59PM

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were necessary and justified, Nathan. You may disagree, but the alternative WOULD have been an armed invasion of Japan, killing millions of Japanese rather than hundreds of thousands. Further, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than either of those two attacks.

I place an infinite value on my children's lives. I place less value on my own soul. I have thought this through, carefully and fully.

Occam's Tool| 1.10.13 @ 1:59PM

You have no clue what it took to win WWII, Nathan, no matter how many books you read.

CJW| 1.10.13 @ 3:21PM

He knows, he is upset we did what was necessary to win.

Jack in Wi| 1.10.13 @ 4:43PM

All you advocate is war crimes Occam. Things you advocate are far worse then what got a lot of Germans hung after WW2. I have read hundreds of books on WW2 and the so called Holocaust. I have talked to many vets of the American, British, Italian, German, Hungarian, Latvian, Serbian, Ukranian and Romanian army. I also talked to several Jews who survived WW2 in Hitler's empire. I would think the vast majority would have rather done something else. These were mostly employees of mine or people I met over the years in business, not counting 4 aunts and uncles who also served in the American forces. War is nothing but waste and sorrow. The fire bombing of Japan, the Morgenthu plan, the starving of German prisoners of war after Germany surrendered, the expulsion of 15 million Germans from their homes in eastern Europe and the dropping of 2 atomic bombs after Japan was begging for moderate terms for surrender are all terrible war crimes. They all could of been avoided. The biggest laugh were the post war trails where Hitler's partner Stalin was one of the judges.

markenoff| 1.10.13 @ 5:03PM

How many German war criminals were actually hung by the US? Look it up, you will be surprised. And look at the crimes they were convicted of.

Japan was begging for terms of surrender? Yeah, right. Even if the emperor had been willing to surrender we had to show the military command as well as the Japanese people (who still thought they were winning the war) that it was futile to continue to resist. If the Japanese were so willing to surrender why did they have plans, some of which they implemented, to kill hundreds of thousands of allied prisoners many of whom they were already staring and working to death? Would it have been better if we just blockaded the home islands and starved the civilian population to death?

And don't paint us with the crimes of the Soviets.

You're reading the wrong books.
Yes war is hell.

markenoff| 1.10.13 @ 5:04PM

BTW we didn't implement the Morgenthau plan. We implemented the Marshall plan.

Jack in Wi| 1.10.13 @ 7:11PM

We implemented the Morgenthau plan. But after about 2 million Germans died the American officers in Germany demanded it's end. They were sick of it's criminality and knew we needed the Germans to resist the Soviets. Morgenthau wanted to starve 30 million Germans. For that alone you can shove all talk of the, so called Holocaust up the kazoo, in my book. There were many mass mudererers in history and plenty of them, especially in the 20th century, were from the Chosen tribe. How about a little rememberence of those millions of deaths? One murdered victim in not better then another. That includes 60 million aborted in this country. Thou shalt not kill.

Occam's Tool| 1.10.13 @ 5:58PM

The "so-called" Holocaust, Jack?

Man, you make it easy.

Jack in Wi| 1.10.13 @ 7:21PM

So called Holocaust because the word was never used until at least 25 years after the actual event. A Jewish professor of laanguages invented the word genocide to describe what happend to the Jews. He wanted a special word for the event. Well other mass murders were using the word and it fit. So then the word Holocaust was appropriated from the Bible. Holocaust in the Bible talks of a voluntary offering to God.There was nothing volutary in Hitler's crimes. Well Genocide is good enough for me and the crime that happened against the Jews is not unique. There have been many in history. You Occam advocate mass murder and genocide here everyday. Maybe I should start calling you a holocaust advocator. The definition sure fits.

RCV| 1.11.13 @ 1:03AM

The "so-called Holocaust"? You don't think it actually was one?

Jack in Wi| 1.11.13 @ 2:48AM

I think a lot of Jews were killed in the war and have read many books on the subject. I knew some Jewish people who were under Hitlers power during the war. The word Holocaust is an invented word to replace another invented word Genocide. When genocide got popular as a word to describe other mass murders Holocaust was used to help with the propaganda. I consider it a propaganda word like Islamofascim, and homicide bomber. I am not going to play those games anymore. I am against all mass murders past, present, and future.

markenoff| 1.10.13 @ 4:54PM

The Constitution "...places strict limits on what the government can do even in time of war." I agree. But the limits it places are on what it can do to US citizens and lawful aliens NOT what it can do to foreign citizens, foreign combatants and illegal combatants.

No German or Japanese war criminal was convicted for "defending their country". They were the aggressors if you remember.

Yes the Geneva and Hague conventions limit us. But they do not forbid the use of nuclear weapons, carpet bombing or firebombing of cities or the use of aerially dispersed mines.

markenoff| 1.10.13 @ 4:44PM

The US military has done more demining in Afghanistan than any other organization.

markenoff| 1.10.13 @ 4:45PM

The mines are there because of teh RUSSIANS not us.

BleedingHeartKneeJerkLIBrooks | 1.10.13 @ 6:06PM

"Jack is right"

For once you are correct.
Jack was right, we were wrong-- nevertheless, we CAN stay in Ashcanistan if the Chinese are willing to continue bankrolling our presence, and if young dogfaces from whatever country are willing to be picked off one at a time.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.10.13 @ 8:03AM

"The terrorists didn't follow us home from Vietnam anymore then they followed the French home from ... Algeria"

While leaving most of your easily refuted remarks for others to pick apart, Jack, please allow me just respond to this one.

I don't know if you've been following the demographics or not, but the terrorists and many others from Algeria, Morocco and elsewhere in North Africa have followed the French home, and are in the midst of taking France over.

Jack in Wi| 1.10.13 @ 8:45AM

Nothing is refuted as usual. Millions of Muslims were allowed into France over the decades. They have a higher birthrate then the native French.The French decided to do this themselves. They have now lived in France for a long time and there is little if any terrorism. They are often part of an underclass but the French allowed these people in and they are not going anywhere. You refute nothing.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.10.13 @ 8:53AM

You state they didn't follow the French home, then go on to note that they did (whether or not the French permitted it). I didn't have to refute you, you refuted you.

SUBVET| 1.10.13 @ 9:08AM

Jr. ..............everyday it's the same old sh#t Jack throws-up you respond.....

Don't you and the rest get tired going through the same drill everyday.......I know I am tired of reading it.

CJW| 1.10.13 @ 9:18AM

What is the alternative, to let crap like Jack and purpie stand? I see your point, same stuff every day, the Jews, Israel, USA, torture, blah blah. That is why I just post purpie's own words that show what an idiot he is. For Jack, he is obsessed with Israel, Jews, and criticizing our country. He makes excuses for Pearl Harbor, what do you suggest we do?

Von Mises Jr| 1.10.13 @ 9:28AM

SUBVET and CJW,
Remember the lesson: do not argue with them on substance. Just use their own tactics back at them. Rule number #5 is "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
Besides neither Jack nor Perp being very intelligent, even if they read "Rules for Radicals," I am sure many such as me have also read "Art of War" and "The Prince" that make Alinsky's book look like a coloring book. The only redeeming value of "Rules for Radicals" is that it is so simplistic that even a liberal drone can get the lesson.

SUBVET| 1.10.13 @ 9:53AM

VMJ..............mom's rule #6......ignore them and they will go away.

Liberal drone.....moochers electing looters to steal from producers !

SUBVET| 1.10.13 @ 9:57AM

Can someone answer why is it everyday jackoff is the first post on every artical everyday.......no job ?

If anyone here thinks TLP was baned for off "color" remarks then TAS should ban jacksh*t for pollution........at least for a couple of weeks.

Pecos Pete| 1.10.13 @ 10:39AM

And, periodically, short-term ban Poop, I mean Perp, oh my ... Purp, no its name is Violet; and the new it, Arnie.

vtwin and Alan "I can make up any name I want to" Brooks can stay.

Jack sometimes writes something useful and interesting. If he would just quit the Jew/Israeli hate spouting he'd be more useful to his cause.

Jack in Wi| 1.10.13 @ 4:12PM

Middle East issues are the most written about here. I am the counter balance. I have never ever written anything anti semitic or called for violence against anyone. Everyday the Zionist goon squad here calls for genocide and war crimes against whole populations of innocent Muslims and others. Shame on you people. Shalom.

vtwin| 1.10.13 @ 11:24AM

My guess, it’s an enlarged prostate.

C'mon Man!| 1.10.13 @ 12:18PM

Subvet, methinks TLP was banned due to noting that Obama's actions were going to cause someone to shoot him. I guess that is a no-no. Tim cautioned me when I said it yesterday.
I believe neither Tim nor I suggest shooting him, we just make the comment that Obama's actions WILL lead someone to do it.
And if it does happen, neither of us will be crying...

TLP| 1.10.13 @ 1:24PM

Exactly.

Occam's Tool| 1.10.13 @ 6:01PM

I would be. We don't need martyrs to an evil cause.

Jack in Wi| 1.10.13 @ 4:07PM

Retired and an early riser after decades of hard, productive work, unlike you people. Most of you guys are yeshiva students on welfare in Israel or someplace else milking the goyim, or more productive Jews. Get a job and be productive. Study the Talmud, on your own time, without milking the rest of us.

Occam's Tool| 1.10.13 @ 5:51PM

But you're not antisemitic.

JmsA| 1.10.13 @ 6:51PM

Well, at least he's got some of the terminology right. He would have fit right in, possibly as a half-ass docent, in that Judaica museum Hitler was planning to open at the conclusion of the war, after his extermination of all the Jews in Europe, if not everywhere else.

Jack in Wi| 1.10.13 @ 7:28PM

Nothing anti-semitic in that post or any other ones of them. I have heard the same from many Jews who tell me the Harendi are often leaches. Why don't you get a real job Occam. Internet trolling can't pay much. Of course you do get your government payments, and food stamps. The truth will set you free.

loulou| 1.10.13 @ 8:00PM

I wonder where his murderous rage comes from. What did his parents do during the Nazi era and where did they live?

Occam's Tool| 1.10.13 @ 6:03PM

What's your beef with the Talmud, Jack?

I appreciate being called a Yeshiva student, but I'm a middle aged MD.

Jack in Wi| 1.10.13 @ 4:19PM

You have no idea what von Mises was all about. Your endless calls for endless wars for no sane reason are a disgrace to everyone who calls themselves a libertarian. You are as dumb as a stump. War is the totalitarians best friend. Your bigotry is beyond belief. We are all indiviguals and all should be judged on that basis. King was right about judging people by their charecter. Judging you, I would give you an F----- as a human being.

Jack in Wi| 1.10.13 @ 4:26PM

You guys are nuts. I am a prolife conservative who has voted 13 times for the Republican presidential nominee. I have been involved in pro-life work for decades. You can't be for war crimes and torture and call yourselves conservative or real Americans. Unlike you guys from the Zionist goon squad in Haifa, who spend all day stinking up Middle East forums. Birds of a feather hang together.

loulou| 1.10.13 @ 12:27PM

"What is the alternative, to let crap like Jack and purpie stand?"
Yes. They have no value. They contribute nothing and are taking up valuable space.

Jack in Wi| 1.10.13 @ 4:02PM

You guys are the pot calling the kettle black. What a stale bunch of clowns! Everyday nothing but genocide, and more calls for genocide. Nothing but calls for war crimes and mass murder of hundreds of millions, just because they are Muslims. The Zionist goon squad from Haifa is really a murderous gang of criminals. You people stink up every Middle East forum. The vast majority of people in this country are sick to death of your wars and calls for more wars. let Israel do it's own fighting and dying. Enough American blood and treasure has been spent on that putrid pimple of a welfare queen.

TLP| 1.10.13 @ 10:36AM

He's confused.

He must be having his Period.

TLP| 1.10.13 @ 10:37AM

That was for Dom DeLuise.

Pecos Pete| 1.10.13 @ 10:39AM

The Don Dom.

Drunken Sailor| 1.10.13 @ 10:55AM

Little if any terrorism in France huh Jack? The French may disagree.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/.....index.html

http://world.time.com/2012/10/.....rism-cell/

Occam's Tool| 1.10.13 @ 6:00PM

Little if any terrorism in France, except for the dozens of "no-go" zones, Jack. That's "no-go" for firemen and ambulance services, among others. All 751 zones, pendejo.

CJW| 1.10.13 @ 8:47AM

Most of the Algerian rebels that fought the French had served in the French Army in Vietnam. Ben Bella, the FLN leader, was a decorated hero.

The French had beaten the rebels militarily in every battle, especially in Algiers, but the rebels perfected the modern terrorism of setting off bombs in the cafes, theaters, churches, and other public places. The French also perfected the use of torture, and used it effectively to capture most the rebels. But there were always replacement for those captured and killed.

The French lost the will because of the civilian casualties, and DeGaulle gave up Algeria. The Algerian war set the example for the modern terrorists, attack the civilians and destroy their will. Look at Iraq, Afghan, and all the bombings in Israel, but they have not broken the will of the Israelis.

nathan| 1.10.13 @ 9:03AM

You really want to make a case for torture? Honestly? An equally if not more convincing case is that the use of it cost them the war. You see CJW, first again when you act evil, and torture is always evil good intentions be damned, then you are evil. But you see the French had this one "little" problem. For them like us, most of their victims weren't bad guys, they simply weren't very good at playing Santa Clause. So they arrest some guy, torture him, he gives up any name he can think of, they go arrest him, the pattern continued only most of these guys weren't rebels. And as we found out ourselves, when you do that, you just end up creating a lot of new bad guys that didn't exist before. In the end it didn't work, cost them the war. And you see if they had used the Luftwaffe interrogation center model, or the British one that it was modelled after or ours in the Pacific where no one gets touched then you get REAL information. Try reading Matthew Alexander's book sometime if you want to see how real interrogation gets done. Or again Torture and Impunity. In that one you'll also find how you get real intelligence without ever laying a hand on anyone. You all need to quit defending this nonsense.

CJW| 1.10.13 @ 9:14AM

Save your time, do not read anything by you. Get lost.

nathan| 1.10.13 @ 9:38AM

CJW: If I'm wrong PROVE IT. Show me in my post where I made a mistake. Cite a source. I cite books magazines, all the time. What pray tell do you cite? You want to make a case for torture then make it. Tell me stories how we got wonderful actionable information that saved lives. One "small" problem. YOU CAN'T. As Alfred McCoy pointed out, a reporter went to Israel and asked about the "ticking time bomb" scenario. Had torture ONE TIME stopped a prospective attack? They hemmed, they hawwed, and then finally reluctantly admitted that now that you mentioned it, NO.

Now there, I just cited a source, a real life incident. You have a better one, tell us, counter this one with a better one IF YOU CAN. If you can't then quit defending a method that going back to the Inquisition has been proven to be useless. Oh by the way, you know right the JAG lawyers disagreed with Yoo and Bybee? You do know that right? They thought those "legal" opinionse were bloody nonsense and said so. I mean, you know that right?

TLP| 1.10.13 @ 1:27PM

Water Boarding got us Bin Laden.

Case closed.

These guys Killed 3,000 Innocent Americans.

They shoulda been SKINNED ALIVE.

markenoff| 1.10.13 @ 5:07PM

Waterboarding is not torture, not compared to what the French did in Algeria.

Occam's Tool| 1.10.13 @ 1:48PM

Waterboarding turned KSM.

One doesn't need to torture, exactly. Just use sleep deprivation, mild food deprivation, cold and damp and heat techniques. On/off and crack goes the weasel.

Permanent organ damage is a fool's game, unless the time consideration is dire.

Quartermaster| 1.10.13 @ 7:27PM

And we do not know, to this day, if water boarding got us a thing. You spout nothing but ignorance.

Quartermaster| 1.10.13 @ 7:30PM

Nathan, this lot of leftists don't respond to substance. Like the rest of their leftist brethren, they have knee jerk responses. They are the Pavlov's dogs of politics, and more ignorant.

They won't counter you because they can't. They have a very shallow knowledge of most things and can't stand anyone that has a better command of the facts than they. Frankly, it doesn't take much to have a better command of the facts either.

They just fling manure and, all the while, act as if they know it all, when they know very little.

vtwin| 1.10.13 @ 11:18AM

Albert, are you equating Muslims with “terrorists?”

TLP| 1.10.13 @ 11:49AM

Of course. Like we equate You with S**t fer Brains.

Do you know any other Terrorists, S**t fer Brains?

I mean, BESIDES the Tea Party, Christians, and the Boy Scouts.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.10.13 @ 4:11PM

"but the terrorists and many others from Algeria, Morocco and elsewhere in North Africa "

Vtwin;

The word muslim doesn't appear in my post. I used the word and to describe a group in addition to the Algerian terrorists who are now in France.

Von Mises Jr| 1.10.13 @ 8:09AM

Thursday Troll Contest (sorry TLP)

Who will Perp be today?
Possible answers:
Perp
Jefferson
nathan
Arnie
Margie
Tim
(Extra credit if the panel concludes that it is a name not mentioned in the usual plethora of know aliases)

Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.10.13 @ 8:26AM

You left out the asterisk on Tim (Tim*), and those from the class of 2011 and 2012 might better remember him as "Clint".

Pecos Pete| 1.10.13 @ 10:43AM

Alan "I can be any name I want" Brooks.

Von Mises Jr| 1.10.13 @ 11:00AM

Nobody picked nathan yet. If you get in now, you are almost a sure winner unless Perp worked the night shift last night and is still trying to tidy up.

TLP| 1.10.13 @ 1:29PM

Ben Stein.

Did I Win?

Von Mises Jr| 1.10.13 @ 5:21PM

Winner. I think we have found the troll.

canuckistani| 1.10.13 @ 2:15PM

And me .

AllAmericanAmerican| 1.10.13 @ 9:07AM

I was just wondering if "the fighting season" is longer or shorter than football season? Is there playoffs? Or maybe it's like deer season? You can't shoot terrorists out of season and in season you only have a 3-bag limit?

But yeah it is kinda hilarious when a neocon calls a neocon a neocon.

jaytrain| 1.10.13 @ 9:22AM

perhaps , we should revisit the notion of the punitive raid . It worked for the Romans and I don't believe there was much of a problem with Lidice afterwards .I jest , but not completely .

vtwin| 1.10.13 @ 11:12AM

Like the Bloods and the Crips, the Israelis and the Palestinians?

markenoff| 1.10.13 @ 5:08PM

Actually the British did this following their 1842 debacle and it kept the border quite for many years.

KennesawJack| 1.10.13 @ 10:13AM

In 1966 and 1967 I spent about 25 years in Peshawar. I had several occasions to travel via car from Peshawar to Kabul throught the Northwest Territory via the Kyhber Pass. As you entered the pass a very large sign jumped out at you, "You are now entering tribal territory. The Government of Pakistan is no longer responsible for your safety. Enter at you own risk." To bring home this fact, the last Pakistani miliatry installation, Shagai Fort (home of the Kyber Rifles) was immediately on your left as you passed the sign. You were on your own. Likewise when traveling up the Swat Valley. The place was a shit-hole then, it's a shit-hole now, and it will always be a shit-hole. Islam has a way of doing that to a country. I suggest all future military action take place from about 37,000 feet with those thingies that make big mushrooms in the sky. Otherwise, get the hell out of there and let them know that if they f**k with us again, we are going to corner the world wide market in glass. God forgive me but I HATE those untermenschen.

CJW| 1.10.13 @ 10:20AM

KJack

You should be Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. In your spare time, also Sec of Treasury. Abolish the rest.

I agree. I am with Harry Truman, someone attacks us, destroy them.

TLP| 1.10.13 @ 1:36PM

I agree with Black Jack Pershing.

When the Muslims attack us, Kill'em with Bullets dipped in Pigs Blood, and bury them with their Asses up in the air.

Quartermaster| 1.10.13 @ 7:35PM

That Pershing did that is doesn't even rise to the level of urban legend. They sprinkled the women with pig's blood as it renders them unclean for 30 days. They simply repeated the process before the 30 days was over. It didn't take long before the men settled down and behaved.

Occam's Tool| 1.10.13 @ 1:51PM

Yes. I am actually NOT for fighting my enemies, but destroying them. There is a difference.

Occam's Tool| 1.10.13 @ 1:50PM

KJ: You see my inevitable logic. I hate it, too. But it took Hiroshima and Nagasaki to crack the Japanese, and the Germans did no "stab in the back" crap after Hamburg and Dresden.

Islam sucks as hard as Muhammed does.

Quartermaster| 1.10.13 @ 7:37PM

The Japs did not surrender because the nukes. See above as to what got the Japs to surrender and they had been offering it for nearly a year before it was finally accepted and they did surrender.

Hamburg took place fairly early in the war and was not done intentionally. They didn't realize they would get that effect. Dresden, on the other hand, was intentional and militarily unnecessary. It will always stand as a black mark on the US and IK.

JmsA| 1.10.13 @ 6:58PM

Nothing but sheer eloquence. Bravo!

JP| 1.10.13 @ 10:20AM

Jed's piece begs the question, "What should we have done in Afghanistan after 9/11?" We do know that the initial operation was run by the Sepcial Operations Command and not CENTCOM. And once the Taliban were destroyed, General Franks demanded that CENTCOM be given over-all operational control. Within 2 weeks, CENTCOM directed (or shall we say, bungled) Tora Bora.

TLP| 1.10.13 @ 1:40PM

Tora Bora was "bungled" because, like Clinton, the Bush Administration listened to THE LAWYERS when a Car Convoy was seen leaving Torah Bora, and the Special Forces wanted it Bombed.

Look it up.

Quartermaster| 1.10.13 @ 7:38PM

The blind pig finds a truffle. Imagine that.

BShep| 1.10.13 @ 10:46AM

Bill’s All Purpose Middle Eastern Policy

In any Middle Eastern conflict, always arm the side that is losing. Evaluate this action on a monthly basis. When the situation changes, start arming the other side. If the conflict ends, send the CIA in to start it up again.

Provide an AK47 and 150 rounds of ammunition to ANY Middle Eastern female who asks for them. I include this just to see the heads of Middle Eastern men explode, literally and figuratively.

NEVER get involved in a land war. Apply all military force from the air.

In any war, kill them all until the survivors give up, no nation building.

There are no innocents in war. Children grow up to become fighters. Women produce more fighters.

BShep| 1.10.13 @ 10:46AM

Obviously, bring our troops home now!

Pecos Pete| 1.10.13 @ 10:47AM

All USA military involvement in Afghanistan should have ended about 4 months after it started. Staying has been simply stupid. We should leave as quickly as we can without losing one more drop of blood or one thin dime.

Louis Jenkins| 1.10.13 @ 10:51AM

Get out early, rather than late. That would have been the best plan. Kinda like sex. Turning the country into a glass parking lot would have been a good plan too. The entire country is a wasteland, and anything would have been an improvement.

Drunken Sailor| 1.10.13 @ 11:03AM

Hell, we could have napalmed every poppy field we saw and watch while what little economy they had folded. Sometimes all it takes is to hit your enemy in the wallet before they decide your not worth the effort. If that failed, bomb every taliban outpost known, bomb the rubble, and bomb it again anytime they try to rebuild it until they get the message.

canuckistani| 1.10.13 @ 2:21PM

Impossible.
Karzai is there for one reason only: keep the gas line going. That's why the Brits and Russkies were there and failed before.
All of Houston would be pretty perturbed if you were in control of the "button" Drunk.

Our prediliction for bombing incredibly poor countries for 1st world reasons still astounds me. They know nothing of our aims or fetishes or warped sensibilities, they just know they want to survive.

Shame on the west for getting in the middle of a tribal blood feud once again.

Drunken Sailor| 1.10.13 @ 3:03PM

Keep the oil flowing huh? You really are an idiot aren't you? They don't even produce enough to export.

CHIEF EXPORTS:
Opium, fruits and nuts, hand woven carpets, wool, cotton, hides and pelts, precious and semi-precious gems.

CHIEF IMPORTS:
Capital goods, food and petroleum products, and most consumer goods.


Read more: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.....z2HbYgGfHc

Notice one of their chief IMPORTS is petroleum?

canuckistani| 1.10.13 @ 5:05PM

Gas, as in the emanation from you....
Read up on the Bush family's overtures to the Taliban and TAPI. The Brits and Canadians had Kandahar and Helmand provinces with the specific task of prepping the route from Turkmenistan to Quetta. It explains almost everything to do with the US and the Pak ISI mischief in the area during and after the Russkie debacle.

There is nothing in Afghan of consequence other than a bypass around Iran. Our boys bled and died for a supply line that has zero benefit to you or me.

Think about it.

CJW| 1.10.13 @ 8:24PM

So why didn't your obama leave in 2008?

Simon Templar| 1.10.13 @ 11:04AM

This reading article was a bit surreal and frankly I must admit I was a bit surprised and disconcerted at the level of strange confusion and misinformation that it contained.
First, he uses that word Neo-con, the ridiculous label and myth used and created by the Left to project their progressive war mongering, their lack of coherent foreign policy, and the consequences of these wars and conflicts unto conservatives. We have never had a conservative president except perhaps Ronald Reagan who at least tried to approach it. What we have had for the past century is progressive and progressive light.
Secondly, I just do not understand why it is so difficult for some to understand that we indeed have a real enemies, there are real threats to our security, our liberty, and our republic that have more to do with us being just us and not anything that we have done or not done in the past.

Simon Templar| 1.10.13 @ 11:16AM

These threats would be there even if we had a real conservative in the white house and had a true and honest functioning Republic not controlled by an elite of 20th century progressives and corrupt politicians. No amount of appeasement, looking the other way, nor denial is going to change that or stop it. Nor is continual stupid mass invasions and decade long occupations at treasury busting levels of financing and spending. It seems we can not do anything but the extremes.

Simon Templar| 1.10.13 @ 11:23AM

Something needed to be done. What? One thing is seems very clear. The contradictions are boundless, the confusion is mountainous. Zionist are either behind every tree and responsible, or its the fault of the Neo-cons while the most radical anti-semitic left wing president in history is selling arms to our enemies and dropping tons of bombs via drones, or its the corporations and the military industrial complex, or the failure of our military generals.

Simon Templar| 1.10.13 @ 11:27AM

Then there is the continual America left wing pastime of supporting a war, getting us into one, and setting up every condition possible through stupid appeasement and denial policies, and then afterwards, sabotaging every effort for us to win it, using it as a political football, and further destroying out image and intentions for political gain. That one is particularly interesting and insane.

Simon Templar| 1.10.13 @ 11:31AM

Then there seems to be the continual stupid mistakes made over and over in these nation building efforts and the rapidly fading public support that seems to last up until the inevitable complexities and setbacks take place and everyone gets fatigued and wants to change the channel.

Simon Templar| 1.10.13 @ 11:37AM

Then there is the unbelievable contradictions. While were fighting the enemies, were leaving our backdoor border unguarded and unsecured, make no attempts to control and monitor who is immigrating here, and do everything to limit decent American citizen liberties while protecting via an army of GD liberal lawyers who defend the supposed rights of detainees, non combatant terrorist, and dangerous terrorist cells within our cities.

Simon Templar| 1.10.13 @ 11:43AM

Of course the endless dribble from talking heads who could not find their way out of a paper bag.
Yeah, we should thank Obama for pulling the troops out. How GD naive can you people get? Like he frigin gives a rats ass about anything but his left wing agenda and his dreams of castrating this nation and humiliating it.
Yeah, Babbin, we got some issues here and it is a bit bigger than just bring the troops home we lost another one.

Drunken Sailor| 1.10.13 @ 12:14PM

Simon, you're on fire today. Excellent post!

Simon Templar| 1.10.13 @ 12:24PM

Thank you. Not sure if it will make a bit of difference, however. We are a sick and lost people. All of us, not just the hopeless liberals and left wing useful idiots.

TLP| 1.10.13 @ 1:43PM

Actually, Simon, they use Neocon to describe JEWS who have left the Liberal Plantation.

Occam's Tool| 1.10.13 @ 1:53PM

Yeah....sigh. Screw 'em. I'd rather hang out with Tim and the Saint anytime.

canuckistani| 1.10.13 @ 2:46PM

It sure as hell wasn't a consequence of liberal appeasement that got us into these adventures. Look at the roots of modern jihadi ideology - embarassment and poverty, time and again.

These people are dirt poor and constantly abused by "friendly" regimes doing the bidding of the west. This is not an excuse for their behaviors, but it is a reason that we are wont to ignore as an inconvenience on our march to commercial success.

Our greatest export has been arms and security training to regimes only interested in signing sweetheart deals with US interests at the complete expense of poor people.

We moan and complain about the "millions" of the unwashed that leave these lousy places - as if a dozen colonialist euro powers' experiences with exactly the same thing is a surprise to us.

canuckistani| 1.10.13 @ 2:48PM

In spite of what readers on here think about the dreaded Taliban, think about what they did for US "security": opium production way down. Gas line negotiations - restarted and near completion - until we reneged on it! Russian incursion into the mid-continent - ended. Iran - stymied by the TAPI development.

It was that liberal titan Saint Ron that cut and ran from Lebanon, traded stingers to Iran and abandoned the Mujahudeen in Afghanistan. It was the pacifist Tricky Dick that ushered in the PLO, Ghadaffi and the Assads. It was the socialist and non-corporatist Daddy Bush that kicked the hornets' nest between Hussein and the Emirs, and it was the unflinching friend of the left, Junior that spectacularly overshot the target in Baghdad.

There were no Iraqis or Taliban on those planes, just Saudis and a couple of Egyptians.
...and there were no liberal appeasers signing the orders.

Simon Templar| 1.11.13 @ 1:33AM

...and there were no liberal appeasers signing the orders.

No, they were busy giving orders to special ops to not kill the likes of Osama bin Laden, placating enemies and showing signs of great weakness, making lopsided deals throughout the cold war, allowing infiltration of spies and enemies within the highest places of government, denying needed resources to fight the wars that they earlier supported, or attempting at every opportunity they could find to cut defense capabilities.

Occam's Tool| 1.10.13 @ 5:53PM

1979: Carter. If he had backed the Shah, we would not be dealing with this now.

Simon Templar| 1.11.13 @ 1:10AM

It sure the hell was for most of the wars in the 20th century. The first world war was crafted by the biggest progressive of them all. Then the idiot progressive created the most ridiculous treaty ever seen in history that set up the conditions for the second. The second world war by another appeaser who made most of his decisions by polls and his communist infiltrated State Department.
Then followed a cold war of appeasement and an arms race and several land wars started by democrats and progressives desiring to save the world for democracy.
Their embarrassment and poverty are solely their own responsibility and were present well before we showed up attempting to do trade and resource allocation with the governments and regimes that were their own doing. These governments played the Russian communist or they were playing the US. Muslims have been hating and attempting to destroy the West since 600 AD.

Simon Templar| 1.11.13 @ 1:26AM

You have a warped, typical liberal view of history that likes to create the myth that somehow conservativism is evil and liberalism has been good and wonderful. The reality is that progressives have largely controlled most of the foreign policy of the last century and were either starting conflicts via appeasement and poor foreign policy like supporting Mao and abandoning his opposition, undermining and exploiting these conflicts for political gain, or cutting and running and causing more problems that surface later.
I am not going to defend Nixon, Bush, or anyone but I am also not going to fall for simplistic notions that we are always at fault and have only are prurient interest at heart either. We have had real enemies, these enemies have been largely responsible for their own troubles, we have not always handled these conflicts smartly, and many times we have had to make bargains with devils, or the least of two evils as no other alternatives were available. That is the real world.

TLP| 1.10.13 @ 2:47PM

I thought I was The Saint?

(I get it. Simon Templar)

loulou| 1.10.13 @ 11:05AM

Can't we just leave Afghanistan and let them live in their own filth?

Bill8472| 1.10.13 @ 11:27AM

If we're not going to fight our enemies in Afghanistan, why are we keeping our troops there?

If we're not going to pursue military aggression, there's no point in putting our armed forces in harm's way. Let the bloody Afghans, who tells us we shouldn't be there anyway, figure it out for themselves. We told them when we went in that we weren't going to stay. Time to keep that word. Get out. Let the diplomats carry whatever load there is for us.

Simon Templar| 1.10.13 @ 12:02PM

While were at it let us clean up this confusion about torture which inevitably has to be brought into the discussion and used like everything else to self flagellate ourselves and reiterate, like the good neurotics that we are, that it is probably all our fault.

The whole issue is a typical RINO, CINO philosophical response. Lust like our liberals who play by no rules or ethics, we MUST fight them with clean hands, be perfect and pure, make our little suicide pacts in protecting ridiculously applied and inappropriately applied so-called rights of non-citizens and our enemies.
Torture then gets defined as anything other that making tea and cookies for those that seek to destroy us with no regard to any rules, laws, or ethics of war. Torture then becomes worse than massive terrorist acts against innocent people.
What is torture? Like racism, it then becomes a politically distorted concept used like weapon or another form of terrorism to oppress our opponents and push our agendas. Using the word Chicago then is a racist remark or do whistle.

Drunken Sailor| 1.10.13 @ 12:18PM

Exactly. For example, I have yet had anyone explain to me how water boarding is torture when our own troops (many voluntarily) go through this during at SERE school.

Sure it's scary and uncomfortable but hell, so is a lot of things members of the military go through.

The constant changing of definitions to support a argument has become ridiculous, yet a favorite tool of the left.

Kingofthenet| 1.10.13 @ 12:33PM

Well you see, I have sex with my girlfriend, but IF you force her to do it physically it's called RAPE, Get it?

Drunken Sailor| 1.10.13 @ 12:46PM

You are a idiot. Having sex, willing or not, is not a case of national security. Though it is a crime.

Killing people is a crime, but killing them during war is not.

Occam's Tool| 1.10.13 @ 1:56PM

Torture results in permanent functional or organ damage. Capisce? Waterboarding ain't it.

Quartermaster| 1.10.13 @ 7:45PM

Not necessarily. A lot of methods of torture leave not a mark on the body, nor result in any permanent damage. But, they are highly coercive and result in extreme pain. The French were past masters of it, and you see what it got them in Algeria and Tonkin.

nathan| 1.10.13 @ 12:50PM

Sigh. Must we really? Honestly? Pay attention class. Besides the fact that the Inquisition used waterboading and a case can be made that ANYTHING they did is by definition torture. (Disagree anyone?) In several conflicts WE not someone else, WE courtmartialed OUR troops for waterboarding detainees. That means WE by ourselves defined the act as torture. Follow me so far? At Tokyo which we presided over, waterboarding was named in bills of indictment against several Japanese. By putting that method of interrogation in those bills of indictment we said it was unacceptable and by definition torture. Got that? Questions? Notice, we are doing all this not others. We and we alone are setting these precedents not outsiders. And there are documented instances that during the Bush administration people died while being subject to it. So benign it ain't. But again WE ourselves have 100 years of defining this as torture. We did. Got that?

But the bigger point here and PAY ATTENTION is that torture, waterboarding whatever, doesn't work. Who says so? DOD. Look at their manuals. Look at the Israeli example I cited. Did West get any useful information in that room? NO. IT DOESN'T WORK FOLKS. No, it doesn't.

nathan| 1.10.13 @ 12:59PM

Go back to WWII. Look again at the Luftwaffe interrogation unit and the British center it was modeled after. Total hands off and marvelously effective. Look at our unit in the Pacific. Never touched the Japanese POW's and got everything they wanted too. The head of that unit testified in Congress against any and all torture. He has maybe a "little" credibility here? The best interrogators know the language know the culture know some background and know WHAT THEY'RE doing. Jack Bauer simply doesn't work in real life and no one can make a convincing case it does. We destroyed our reputation for NOTHING. We created tens of thousands of new enemies for virtually no actionable information. Because people watch "24", a TV show for goodness sakes, and think it's real. We had a "conservative" supreme court judge, who needs to resign actually say, "well Jack saved LA didn't he?" NO HE DIDN'T. It was TV JUDGE!

Morality aside it doesn't work. If you don't anything else out of this, get that. Torture gets you nothing. PERIOD. The inquisitor, real quote "did you fly through the air with the devil? Sure I did now quit hurting me". That's the what you get when you torture people, nothing much better. Quit defending this nonsense.

Simon Templar| 1.10.13 @ 1:25PM

"We destroyed our reputation for NOTHING. We created tens of thousands of new enemies for virtually no actionable information."

This is unsupportable and a fallacy. How could a culture that straps bombs to their kids and worships death and has no qualms about torture, terrorism, and cutting the heads off journalist, give a rats ass about waterboarding or anyone's reputation. Grow up. They could care less, in fact it probably gave them a new found respect. Our reputation? What world do you live in? That is nothing but left wing manipulative horsecrap to elicit an emotional response and limit thinking.
Our reputation was sullied and defamed by our enemies with propaganda and lies for over a century by communist and the Left. It did not matter one iota what we did or did not do.
If there are more effective ways than let us use them. If all others fail on particular terrorist, then we have a dilemma and have to decide, stop one terrorist we know knows, or sacrifice hundreds of thousands, even those residing in San Francisco and other liberal havens.
Even if it did work, we would have to evaluate whether it was worth it in some cases where alternatives would not be available. That is the question, not all of this other nonsense.
Morality? Yes, is it moral to allow hundreds of thousands of people to die because you do not have the sense, balls, and moral reasoning to stop it? You better ban all war then and any killing in any self defense act...

Kingofthenet| 1.10.13 @ 3:07PM

Besides Justice Saclia, Rush Limbaugh also LOVED that show, I think they have a Walter Mitty complex, while the rest of us dream about laying beautiful women or Indiana Jones type adventures, they dream of being the HERO that saves America from Ragheads, 'Dirty Harry' style.

Simon Templar| 1.10.13 @ 1:03PM

Waterboarding was never our standard procedure, was apparently used in two or three incidents that it was deemed appropriate and necessary by the same court system and government, and is there is no documented evidence that anyone died as far as I know, let see it, and it indeed produced some very critical information and stopped some serious massive destructive threats. Would I support it as standard procedure? No.
You seem to ignore that all and any pressured interrogation is now under scrutiny and now considered torture by those that would have us defenseless. That is the issue. Stop sidestepping it.

markenoff| 1.10.13 @ 5:12PM

Yes I disagree that everything the inquisition did was torture if for no other reason than you have not even defined WHICH inquisition you are talking about since there were more than one.

Simon Templar| 1.10.13 @ 12:53PM

Fallacy of the false analogy.
Keep going, anyone with half a brain can see just how insincere, stupid, and manipulative your comments are. You make my job a lot easier and prove everyday that modern liberalism is a mental illness.

nathan| 1.10.13 @ 3:19PM

How about this. Read "Torture and Impunity" and "Ghost Plane" and then see how much of what you just wrote you end up retracting. Most of it. I first addressed the waterboarding issue because I was asked to. You're flat out wrong. Quit listening to Cheney, he, gasp, is lying. Waterboarding was far more widespread than two or three but in any case got us nothing. Second your definition of torture is too restrictive and is not supported by the conventions. Just because you don't break bones doesn't mean you didn't torture the guy. Sleep deprivation is a well known torture method. Positional torture that doesn't leave marks but inflicts horrible pain is also well known. Geneva outlaws anything that inflicts pain. What you all are citing is Bybee and Yoo but the JAGS vehemently disagreed with them and said that their opinions were going to put the interrogators at risk being brought to trial as war criminals. They were right.

You sir lead an insular life. For a real terrorist you're right, they DON'T care. But the the vast majority out there aren't. When they see us torturing people, especially innocent people like most of the folks at AG an Gitmo were, breaking our own rules, that prompted far too many to get in the fight that might have stayed on the sidelines. The estimated death toll from that alone is roughly the same as another 911. You have to walk it the way you talk it folks.

nathan| 1.10.13 @ 3:28PM

Human rights organizations have universally told us to stay away because we have lost all credibility on the subject. You did see the story did you not about the contractor in THIS country that was ordered to pay 5.28 million to 71 former AG "residents" because they assisted in torturing them? You saw that right? CACI is next and smart money says they're going to write checks too. Now tell me again how "limited" this all was. And what makes this so ghastly is that most everyone we harmed was innocent. Again upwards of 70 percent at both prisons had no business being there. You want to defend torturing innocent people like the Canadian? That's a real conservative position, right? I thought we were supposed to defend innocent people not abuse them and yet everything we know say they, not people like KSM were the objects of most of the abuse. Defend that if you will.

Which is why we don't do it. And again, all for nothing. Virtually nothing actionable. We see this all the time domestically. We see police who get "carried away" also for the best of intentions and the resulting confessions are garbage. Chicago 9 ring any bells? I suppose you support "enhanced" interrogation for suspects in this country too? I mean what's the difference?

Simon Templar| 1.11.13 @ 2:00AM

I am not in favor of torturing anyone, jackass liar, I am in favor of enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorist combatants that have no citizenship and act alone without any regard to the rules of war. I need not defend any contractor or private interest that engages in unlawful activities as they do not represent my position despite your manipulative intention to make the association.
Citizens of the US are protected by their constitution and the Bill of Rights. Soldiers of foreign nations fall under Geneva convention and agreed upon international laws.
Lastly, wars often unfortunately contain idiots that create atrocities and disobey commands. We deal with it, but we do not fold up our tents and go home or surrender because of it. Grow up.

Simon Templar| 1.11.13 @ 1:49AM

Says who? You?
Sleep deprivation, torture? Yeah, we better shut down those fraternity pledges! Your definitions of torture are insanely ridiculous and too loosely defined. Congressional democrats 'investigated" your allegations and support exactly my understanding of waterboarding and its use.
Now, the GITMO myth. The vast majority of these people are extremely dangerous. This is why Obama has not shut it down and no one wants these people on US soil. To assert anything but this and tout your horsecrap to the contrary not only defies reality but displays you are nothing but a hack troll and a liberal spewing propaganda. No one is being tortured there and in fact they are better treated than the soldiers guarding them. Many of those released went right back to serious terrorist activities after release. You have to stop boldy and arrogantly lying.

Kingofthenet| 1.10.13 @ 12:09PM

Jesus Christ, this is the BEST articulation of our problems in Afghanistan, I have EVER read, Hat off Jed!

Simon Templar| 1.10.13 @ 12:18PM

Yes, congratulations Jed, hats off! You now have the complete approval and esteem of our local left wing crazy and darling troll. You know you are doing something right, or should I say left,when you get those dittos and kudos from useful idiots like the above. I rest may case. Next.

markenoff| 1.10.13 @ 5:13PM

Ans so you are a king?

Simon Templar| 1.10.13 @ 12:14PM

That is....dog whistle.
So, a terrorist who now is being interrogated that is believed to have information about a massive terrorist action and is being put under intense pressure to reveal that information is being tortured.
Barney and loud music is now torture. Taking away privileges is now torture. Regimented daily activity and uncomfortableness is now torture.
No, torture is being beaten to near death, shocked with electricity, starved, forced to live in shit, enclosed in darkness for days and weeks, not given medical attention, denied exercise and good nutrition, and bodily harmed with lasting, crippling damage for a scrap of military intelligence. That is torture, you frigin idiots.

cicero| 1.10.13 @ 12:23PM

The problem with the way we go about these things is that we start out on a punitive mission, and then decide to refight WWII all over again. We go in and beat the bad guys, then institute a new Marshall Plan. They made a movie a few years ago called "The Mouse That Roared". It was about a failing little country that, in order to rebuild itself, declared war on the U.S. so that they could surrender to us. Pretty funny.

Unfotunately, it looks pretty much like we have been doing. The stated reason for going in to Afghanistan was to route the Taliban and their pals in A; Queada. We did that in a few weeks. Then we let the bad guys escape into Pakistan. This gave us the excuse to lavish money on Pakistan. Tora Bora should have been levelled while they were holed up. Whoever got into Pakistan should have been hunted down and killed by Spec. Ops, regardless of what the Paks wanted. If they wanted a fight, so be it. As I recall, Bush said that we will punish whoever attacks us, and whoever supports them. There was nothing said about forming Jeffersonian Democracies, and building modern structures for them.

Pull everybody out now. Throw out anybody in this country who preaches sedition. Cancel all visas and immigration welcome parties for anyone from a Muslim country. That will be a start.

Drunken Sailor| 1.10.13 @ 12:47PM

No arguments here.

CJW| 1.10.13 @ 1:03PM

Agree. There is no reason to stay in Afghan since we are not fighting to win. Leave today. The MSM is no longer interested in Afghan since it became Obama's war.

Occam's Tool| 1.10.13 @ 1:54PM

When one goes into a War, ya gotta know what you want to do. nation building vermin is not it. Killing them until they leave you alone, is.

Kingofthenet| 1.10.13 @ 12:26PM

How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

Testimony before subcommittees of the U.S. Senate, April, 1971

I bet there are quite a few 'Wounded Warriors' TODAY who would say the same thing about Afghanistan.

JP| 1.10.13 @ 12:46PM

I suppose the same could be said of the Iwo Vets. But, then again they were different Americans.

Simon Templar| 1.10.13 @ 12:49PM

Well, maybe next time your progressive leaders might try not supporting, starting, or undermining these wars? Vietnam was started by Kennedy, continued and escalated by Johnson, and undermined and lost by your hippie and left wing predecessors. You could care less about any wounded warrior, please. Your hypocrisy and insanity stinks to high heaven. Hey, maybe, Bush was responsible? He might have been planning it when he was a little kid?

canuckistani| 1.10.13 @ 2:57PM

Vietnam was started by Truman and Churchill when they chose the French over home rule. The whole debacle in the last 60 years has been the decline and fall of France and Britain and the delusional sense that the US could do colonialism "better".

For all intents and purposes, China is the perfect example of a cold war opponent - but because we trade with them and sell them our junk bonds, their deficits of morality and spirit suddenly become secondary. Is that a fault of theirs or ours?
Perhaps it's a truism that trading partners seldom get into shooting wars?

JmsA| 1.10.13 @ 7:14PM

Viet Nam, the conflict that eventually sucked in the U.S., was started by the communist North Vietnamese invading South Viet Nam. Truman had his hands full with Korea. It was Eisenhower who denied the French assistance, namely air support to neutralize Viet Minh (c0mmie) artillery which ultimately pounded the French into submission down below, in the Valley of Dien Ben Phu, in 1954. In my opinion, Eisenhower acted correctly in denying assistance to the French colonialists. Eisenhower began covert assistance to the South Vietnamese government in the late fifties. Kennedy through the CIA, had the Diem government overthrown in 1963, followed by increasing American support by the Johnson administration, and full blow American military involvement following the Tonkin resolution, and the landing of American troops in Da Nang.

CJW| 1.10.13 @ 8:30PM

JFK put in close to 15,000, and LBJ had over 600,000.

There were, at most, several hundred advisors between 1956 and JFK.

You have a problem saying Vietnam was Dem war?

The Dem lefties in the 1960's had no problem blaming LBJ.

JmsA| 1.10.13 @ 9:05PM

Do I have to state the obvious? I never denied the Viet Nam war was a democrat war, nor diminished Kennedy's contribution in drawing this country deeper into the quagmire. Everyone, from Eisenhower on down had a part in it. Read the post again, it clears reflects the democrats' part in it. Don't confuse me with a democrat or the leftist trolls milling around these parts; I'm furthest thing from it.

JmsA| 1.10.13 @ 9:24PM

correction: I'm [the] furthest thing from it.

I know fully well that following the Bay of Pigs fiasco, fearing the domestic backlash from their losing another country to communism, i.e. Cuba, as they had previously lost China in 1949, and half of Korea during the Truman administration, Kennedy began to increase assistance, including operations such as CIDG (Civilian Irregular Defense Group) operations against an evern increasing Viet Cong presence in South Viet Nam's Central Highlands, mostly with indigenous Montagnards under the direction of Green Berets, etc., in the first half of 1961.

Happy now, CJW? Let me know if there's else I can help you. Unlike you, I've seen the communist beast up close and personal. Your cynical and condescending, as well as unfounded insinuations are hardly appreciated.

CJW| 1.11.13 @ 7:17AM

My comment was directed to canuck, which should have been obvious to you.

Kingofthenet| 1.10.13 @ 3:02PM

Nah During 'Nam G.W.B was protecting Texas from a VC invasion, serious work.

canuckistani| 1.10.13 @ 5:14PM

Protecting Auburn co-eds from VC invasions.....

markenoff| 1.10.13 @ 5:26PM

Sigh. You're ignorance has hit a sore spot for me. My dad was in the IN Air National Guard during the Vietnam years. Pilots from his unit were regularly rotated into Vietnam. Why? They flew F-4s a plane that was useful in Vietnam. Bush flew F-102s whose main purpose was to intercept invading Soviet bomber fleets during the Cold War. They were designed to fly quickly to high altitude using a lot of fuel and were not designed to carry ground attack ordnance. It saw limited use in Vietnam but not by NG pilots. By 1968 there were no more F-102s in Vietnam. Bush did not graduate from flight school until 1969.

So, 1) being in the ANG did not mean you would not see time in Vietnam and
2) GWB really was "protecting Texas" but not from the VC, from Soviet bombers.

Occam's Tool| 1.10.13 @ 1:55PM

Especially since guys like you backed them up so well, King.

markenoff| 1.10.13 @ 5:15PM

Luckily due to the two atomic bombs the last American (and fewer Americans) to die fighting WWII died years earlier than if we had not used them.

atilla| 1.10.13 @ 2:46PM

whatever happened to all out war to defeat an enemy till he begs for mercy. we've spent over 10 years killing our boys piecemeal.
those animals and that is what they are, live in the 7th century.....let 'em be.
if we notice in the future a build up of enemy concentrations we we decimate them from some air-conditioned office in Kansas. NUFF SAID

canuckistani| 1.10.13 @ 2:52PM

Then you agree with the Brennan choice?

I do.

Frank Drackman| 1.10.13 @ 2:56PM

Isn't "Counter-Insurgency" just a fancy name for what that Saigon Police Chief did to that good for nothing Gook Terrorist?

canuckistani| 1.10.13 @ 3:00PM

Yup.
All regimes end, it's just a matter of how and when.

KennesawJack| 1.10.13 @ 5:07PM

Yes, they do. And that includes this corrupt whore's spawn that currently occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

canuckistani| 1.10.13 @ 5:15PM

We have a chance every two years, amigo.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.10.13 @ 4:21PM

General Loan denied that prisoner's application (who had just been caught after killing several of Loan's police officers).

markenoff| 1.10.13 @ 5:27PM

And their families.

Thom| 1.10.13 @ 3:08PM

When all is said and done with AF the elephant in the room will still be there and after the Taliban gets control of enough of the country bad things will be exported from that nation again and we will be right back where we were after 9/11 asking the same questions. The TSA will still be sexually assaulting passengers and giggling over nudie picture they get off their scanners. The odds have always been against winning defensive wars regardless of the new age theories we
apply to them. The reasons are many but the fundamentals don't change over time.

Thom| 1.10.13 @ 3:11PM

Regardless of the grand theory of the week employed, if you don't apply the proper "tools" and numbers of each to the task all the rest doesn't really matter at the end of the day. You can't solve such problems if you first don't understand your own self-imposed limitations. When something more difficult than the third world backwaters like Iraq in 2003 and AF comes along, we are going to pay a stiff price for ignoring why we lost every conflict other than war since
WWII. We made serious manpower resource calculation mistakes in WWII and suffered for
that in late 44 on. If the best military in the world on a man for man basis can't beat the hillbillies running around AF at will there is a reason that somebody isn't willing to engage. When we get back to where we were in AF in 2001 maybe someone will ask tough questions of those spouting theories that generally fail every time they've been tried. Theories don't win
wars. Someday we are going to have to win one and we don't have the proper force types and
numbers to do what is required in AF now.

Who Knows?| 1.10.13 @ 3:30PM

Nobody knows.

And, over time, the actions of individuals, especially those of leaders, always result in interactions guaranteed to provide new histories.

I “went” to “Kandahar”, last night. That’s the name of a film from 2001 about an Afghan-born Canadian journalist, who tries to save her sister in that city. What a place! What people! What a sorry example of human evolution!

To boot, I just finished “Warrior Politics”, by Robert Kaplan, from 2002.

My own conclusion---

Forget about all the “-stans”. Any of the places ALREADY conquered by Islamic warriors, despite the arbitrary names and boundaries, are simply beyond hope, at least for a generation, and maybe a hundred years—if then.

The truth is, IMHO, the dichotomy is between civilization, or the West, and barbarism, or places where Islam is in control. So, since the West can never change Islam, let alone install a “good” government, the name of the game has to be containment.

Let the poor bastards stew in their own suffering ideology!

Of course, containment is not an option, for Iran, so they must never be allowed to get a nuke.

canuckistani| 1.10.13 @ 5:12PM

So what if Iran gets a nuke?
I'm not being flippant.

Pak already has them, and so does Israel as does the 5th fleet floating all over the gulf.

The blood feud is with Saudi, not the zionists or the great satan, USA.

We have become a net exporter of gas in the last decade, and have enough coal for 10,000 years. NatGas is running at $3 per m3 with an enormous upside. If the Strait of Hormuz is decimated, the US will be just fine. China Japan India and Europe will tank.

Israel is not the target, just a useful distraction to keep Washington engaged. The Persians will not commit suicide over a temple mount. Bank on it.

markenoff| 1.10.13 @ 5:29PM

Coal? COAL!? You can't burn that evil rock! Not in BO's America!

Thom| 1.10.13 @ 5:53PM

Canuckistani,
Unless you have proof that Israel has “nukes” you are just speculating on something that no one else in the world has provided proof for after 40 years of saying Israel has “nukes”. I believe if you do a little research you will find the 5th fleet is not and does not routinely carry “nukes”. There is a treaty reason for that but they can get them in declared emergencies. Typically a single ship, cruiser usually is designated for Special Weapons use and if need be some are carried on the big boy in the middle of the battle group.

Thom| 1.10.13 @ 5:54PM

If you can hold as truth that which you can’t provide proof of then why would you deny others might make the same leap of faith in regard to Iran’s very large and visible “nuke” facilities and long range ballistic missile programs? The difference between Iran having nukes and the Paks is that the Paks haven’t called for the destruction of Israel 12 times a day for the last 30 odd years. Can you find a rational reason why Iran has any beef with Israel, a county it doesn’t share a boarder with and is 800 air miles away across several other countries from? Rational people not isolated from the rest of the world can see plenty of reasons Iran having a single “nuke” small enough to be delivered by a car to the heart of a major city is reason to be more than a little concerned. If your neighbor starts threatening to kill you and your family every day I’ll bet your flip view of situations like this will change when everyone around you says to you, “Why so serious, its only words”.

Occam's Tool| 1.10.13 @ 5:54PM

Yes, they will, canuck. Bank on it.

nikalseyn| 1.10.13 @ 5:25PM

Mr. Babbin always comes at us with common sense. I believe he is correct about our failed strategy of "nation-building" and alluded to the British failures of the 19th century in Afganistan. The Brits most certainly got their behinds whipped a couple of times, or more in that unfortunate land, but they always kept to the same strategy---when the Afghannis got out of hand or destroyed(but for one man)a British force, the Brits would send in an army, beat the hell out of them, and tell them the next time they caused trouble, they would be back to do it again. This they did with men like General Gough and "Bobs" of Khandahar.
Why we insist on winning the hearts and minds of these barbarous people is beyond reason. Get in there"firstest with the mostest" and then get out after you beat them, with a warning about the next time---thank you N.B. Forest.

Thanks for the good article.

markenoff| 1.10.13 @ 5:30PM

When the Brits got whipped in Kabul it was because their Commander, Elphinston was an idiot. Wouldn't have happened if he had listened to his 2nd.

Thom| 1.10.13 @ 6:01PM

Nikalseyn,
One of the reasons we try to “win the hearts and minds” is that not all these people hate us. A substantial portion (but still a minority) don’t want the Taliban life style. If we treat them like all of them are the Taliban it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I’m not suggesting a course of action here but merely pointing out that if lump the entire tribal population of AF into the same pot we will be fighting them all in time, not just the majority that favor the Taliban.

Fred in Boise| 1.10.13 @ 7:48PM

Right on the mark. Babbin forgot to mention Iraq as a bigger Bush blunder than Afghanistan.

Wonder what Babbin would recommend as a course of action?

Fred in Boise| 1.10.13 @ 7:51PM

On second thought....let's arm the tribes we like to the teeth and then pull out. Let them determine best strategy for bucking the Taliban.

CHAUSSURES FEMME AIR MAX LTD | 1.11.13 @ 1:36AM

The American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen, reportedly wanted to keep the more than 60,000 U..S troops in country through this year’s fighting season. Nevertheless, the White House is going ahead with a withdrawal schedule that will reduce the force this summer and to leave only about 25,000-30,000 troops there by spring of next year, and as few as 3,000-4,000 by the end of next year.

Bill8472| 1.11.13 @ 11:12PM

Yeah, they did the exact same thing in the last part of the Vietnam War. Took the troops out against the advice and requests of the JCS.

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 1.11.13 @ 5:52AM

With the exception of Pakistan, every other nation bordering Afghanistan before the 2002 U.S. invasion was backing the Northern Alliance (a loose alliance of anti-Taliban forces mostly consisting of non-Pushtun Afghan minorities...i.e. Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Hazara, etc.). By invading Afghanistan we did what even the Iranians weren't willing to do when 8 of their diplomats were murdered by Taliban forces in the northern city of Mazaresharif in 1998. The Iranian massed thousands of troops along the border but never invaded. It has been Iranian policy and Russian policy as well as the policy of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan to support the Northern Alliance against the hardline Sunni Islamists of the Taliban.

What we did in the beginning and should have continued to do without putting Marines and soldiers (except for maybe special forces and CIA personel) on the ground was to provide intelligence, arms and training to the Northern Alliance and act as their air force as we and other NATO nations recently did for anti-Ghaddafi forces in Libya. Had we done that we could have at least delivered a large part of Afghanistan to forces completely hostile to the Taliban and to their strict fundamentalist brand of Islam.

Instead we fell into the trap as the Soviets and British had done before us.

Bill8472| 1.11.13 @ 11:10PM

Apropos of nothing relevant, I just got back from seeing Zero Dark Thirty on its opening day in my town.

Good flick. Shows waterboarding working to uncover the phone number of bin Laden's courier and from there to finding out where bin Laden was hiding.

More Articles by Jed Babbin

More Articles From Loose Canons

Obama’s Thin Red Line

April 29, 2013 | Jed Babbin

Why Has No One Taken Credit?

April 22, 2013 | Jed Babbin

Dusty Springfield’s Pentagon Budget

April 15, 2013 | Jed Babbin

Guns Responsible for Global Warming

April 8, 2013 | Jed Babbin

When Blackmail Fails

April 1, 2013 | Jed Babbin

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/10/neo-conning-us-again

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|79 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|41 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|58 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|88 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|32 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|25 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 5.24.13

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 5.24.13

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

Most Popular Articles

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.23.13

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord | 5.23.13

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey | 5.23.13

Obama's Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.23.13

Lerner's Plea

Ray V. Hartwell | 5.23.13

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara | 5.22.13

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer | 5.23.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.