Anybody who does not share George Will’s frustrations with the Afghan mission has not been paying attention.
That does not mean George Will is right in his call for American evacuation and a
comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units…
I think that policy answer is wrong. But if we are to reach a better answer, we need to deal with what is right in Will’s analysis of today’s grim and deteriorating Afghan situation.
Will is right about the weakness of the Afghan state. He is right about the endemic corruption of the Afghan government. He is right about the country’s deep backwardness. He is right above all about the Zen unreality of the current mission: to prevent the re-establishment of al Qaeda bases.
The Bush administration’s undeclared strategy in Afghanistan was to invest the minimum necessary to achieve stability – and then refocus on what it regarded as a more important and more winnable theater in Iraq.
Unfortunately, sustaining Afghan stability has proven much more difficult and expensive than imagined back in 2001 and 2002. Then candidate Obama compounded that Bush-era miscalculation with a poorly considered pledge to increase the US commitment in Afghanistan – a pledge that originated much more in the candidate’s political needs than in any strategic calculation. Obama has hugely reinforced the US Army in Afghanistan, with a big “TK” where his counter-insurgency strategy ought to be.
That’s a formula for frustration. What is being said by George Will in public is already being muttered in private by congressional Democrats.
Barack Obama has given Afghanistan men and money. But one vital resource is being withheld: presidential time and commitment. Turning around an unsuccessful war demands intense presidential focus. Everyone around the president must be made to understand that the war is priority 1, and that everything else on the agenda must be subordinated to this supreme imperative. George W. Bush accepted that responsibility in 2006-2008. Barack Obama has not. The results are as we see, in Afghanistan and now in the darkening assessment of as strong-spined an observer as George Will.
72 responses so far
1 Rodak // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:57 am
What is it about the history of foreign powers trying to stabilize or “civilize” Afghanistan that makes Obama, or anybody else, think that the United States will fare any better in the long-run? If Obama is really playing politics, he will get out of the entire Middle East, a.s.a.p. If he does not, this is one Obama voter who won’t be in his camp next time around.
2 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:08 pm
The problem is that that the last time we walked away from Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal and got a failed state that served as a base of operations for AQ. My criticism with our current approach is that we are trying to fight AQ and the drug war at the same time. We are too preoccupied with eradicating poppy production. I couldn’t care less if they grow it. As a matter of fact, I would use the proceeds to rebuild the country. We in the industrialized countries need to stop blaming others for our drug problem. If there was no demand, there would be no supply.
3 DFL // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:11 pm
The only thing vital to the American interest in the Middle East is the oil under its sands. Otherwise, I would endorse what Srdja Trifkovic has written about the Middle East- quarrantine Arabs/Muslims from the West and only import oil from that tempestuous, backward region. What has been crazy for forty years is the enormous immigration of Muslims to Europe and America. That immigration led to riots in Paris and to Osama bin-Laden’s attack of September 11, 2001.
4 John Batchelor // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:15 pm
My information is that the Obama administration aims to withdraw from combat operations in Afghanistan by the 2010 midterms. This is a mighty ambition. To that end, the agents are now using the Saudi cut-outs, chiefly Prince Moqrin the Intelligence cheif, to purchase and persuade the critical and money-demanding elements of the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistan Taliban (I describe many gangs, many families) and Al Qaeda reps to stand-down long enough to sign an armistice. Key to this settlement is the re-election of Hamid Karzai and his fortunate family. The plan is now off track, because the Karzai supporters clumsily handled the election fraud. George Will’s remarks are vain and very tardy. The Bush administration either fell asleep or spent its final two years hiding from accountability, because there was no plan in place for the Obama administration to inherit. Did George Will know this or notice this? What use are Mr. Will’s sources if he is just now discovering that Afghanistan is a sinkhole of US policy? Washington foreign policy is better thought of as a Dr. Seuss story. Colorful, limited vocabulary, harmless to Washington and distinguished by polka dots and solid colors. Detail: the Tajiks in the North are just fine. I am told Mazir is a boomtown. It is Pashtunistan that is corrupt, weak, backward, hollow, murderous, paranoid, modest, self-elected — and proud of it. This is not new information. The Obama administration is aimless now that Karzai has played the anti-colonial card. Petraeus and McChrystal are valiant trying to serve a political master who does not intend to fight. Nor did Bush. Nor does Karzai. Advantage Taliban. Surprise winner: the kindred of Cain camped in Waziristan who are sometimes called Al Qaeda. Susprise loser: Holbrooke is a hollow man with a doomed mission, and he will blame Petraeus and Mullen.
5 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Turning around an unsuccessful war demands intense presidential focus. Everyone around the president must be made to understand that the war is priority 1, and that everything else on the agenda must be subordinated to this supreme imperative. George W. Bush accepted that responsibility in 2006-2008.
Well, now at least we know what to blame the economic collapse in 2008 on. George Bush subordinating everything else to the supreme imperative.
6 Cforchange // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Hey it’s month end and the poppy products are readily available here today!
When will we care about the silent plague invading our youth population? Sleeping on this problem during the past 8 years has created quite a demand here in the interior of the US.
7 sinz54 // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Chekote: The Taliban profits handsomely from the sale of the poppy crop and the morphine and heroin it’s turned into. And those profits help the Taliban kill U.S. troops.
Just as in South America, terrorism and drugs are now joined at the hip. You can’t fight terrorism anymore without cutting off their funding sources: oil and drugs.
8 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Corruption is rampant around the world. Everytime it is brought up as a reason for some failure, it brings a smile to my face. Maybe we should help the rest of the world by telling them that they can reduce corruption but making it legal in the form of campaign contributions, business opportunities, speaking fees. You know. The usual way politicians get rich in the US.
9 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Just as in South America, terrorism and drugs are now joined at the hip.
Then let’s try to sever the relationship by redirecting the revenue from poppy production towards rebuilding the country instead of funding terrorism.
10 sinz54 // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Our original mission in Afghanistan was to clean out al-Qaeda from Pakistan, and capture or kill the top al-Qaeda leadership. We succeeded in the former, but not in the latter. The top al-Qaeda leadership (which probably includes Osama himself) are no longer in Afghanistan, but somewhere in Pakistan. Evidently they escaped the U.S.-led dragnet around December 2001.
The Pakistan government gave the Taliban (and likely al-Qaeda too) sanctuaries across the border in the Pakistan province of Waziristan, from where these enemies can stage cross-border attacks into Afghanistan and then retreat with impunity. The Pakistan government did this to save their own hides–their own people admire Osama bin Laden more than they admire America.
Thus “stabilizing Afghanistan” shouldn’t be our main objective. Putting the al-Qaeda leadership out of business (which means doing something about Pakistan) should be our main objective.
Unless the Obama Administration can clean out those Pak sanctuaries with either diplomatic pressure and/or military force, we’ll never eliminate al-Qaeda as a threat.
11 sinz54 // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:38 pm
oops, I meant:
“Our original mission in Afghanistan was to clean out al-Qaeda from AFGHANISTAN….”
12 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Ironically, the Taliban had previously cracked down on Opium production … production was cut 1000 fold in 2001 following their ban. It was the US liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban which allowed the re-expansion of the opium trade … although I have no doubt now that the out-of-power Taliban, needing money to support an insurgency, doesn’t care where the money comes from.
But then again, Ronald Reagan didn’t care where the money came from to fund the Contras, did he? People often abandon ideological principles for purposes of expediency when they believe they’re fighting a battle for the basic survival of that ideology.
Anyhow, legalize narcotics, and the price plummets, and the money flowing to the bad guys plummets.
13 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:42 pm
sinz: “Unless the Obama Administration can clean out those Pak sanctuaries with either diplomatic pressure and/or military force, we’ll never eliminate al-Qaeda as a threat.”
You could just skip everything before the comma.
Al-Qaeda will always be a threat, if only because by its 9/11 success, and by our reactions to it, we have ensured that the branding is so valuable that any cotierie of radical Islamist nihilists who wants to get a name for themselves are going to call themselves al Qaeda in the future. Hell, most of al Qaeda in Iraq during the occupatino had little to do with Bin Laden.
14 Cforchange // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:47 pm
I totally agree with balcone as do many law enforcement officers:
“legalize narcotics, and the price plummets, and the money flowing to the bad guys plummets.”
The damage is well beyond what anyone wants to admit. It is now an issue of mental illness not crime. The ill need to be supervised and treated. Treatment not costly incarceration. This would also free up alot of jail space so the harmful can be put away as they deserve.
15 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:54 pm
The worst thing about the war on drugs, imo, is that it produced an evolutionary process whereby the worst, most violent, most sociopathic players would end up dominating the market. If someone has a conscience, shows any restraint, feels any remorse over calling in a hit on a policeman or judge or reporter or politician, not to mention a competitor, I doubt they survive in the business anymore. I see only two ways to break this cycle … and one involves the United States having the same amount of freedoms enjoyed by citizens of the former Soviet Union or Mao’s China. The other involves legalization.
16 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Count me in on legalizing drugs. The War on Drugs has been a collosal failure at an enormous cost. We need to admit it. Ajust policy and move on. Same in Afghanistan. Embrace poppy production and take the revenue to rebuild the country.
17 Rodak // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:07 pm
**The other involves legalization.**
Yeah. Make it a health care crisis, rather than a crime wave. Legalization alone won’t completely do the trick, however. Most addicts will be unemployable, but will still need money to buy their drugs. If they can’t work, they’ll have to rob and steal to get their fix. It would seem that, in addition to decriminalization of hard drugs, it would be necessary for the gov’t to be the distributor, if the goal is to eliminate street crime and render unprofitable the black market. The free market should be able to deal with marijuana effectively, without any gov’t intervention other than regulation, as with booze.
18 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Make it a health care crisis, rather than a crime wave. … Most addicts will be unemployable, but will still need money to buy their drugs. If they can’t work, they’ll have to rob and steal to get their fix.
Yeah … and none of this is happening today.
19 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:30 pm
OT
I just sent a message to the editor suggesting an open forum so that we could discuss daily news and other topics not covered by the current threads posted. For example, the release of McDonnell’s thesis on the VA gubernatorial race. Kay Baily Hutchison releasing a web ad attacking Giuliani. The Next Right has started a boycott of the World Nut Daily (Nut is intended). I would like to read the opinions of others here on these and other topics. If you think it is a good idea, please send a message to the editor. Thanks.
20 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Yeah … and none of this is happening today.
Exactly.
21 sinz54 // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Chekote:
I would like to see that too–but it’s pie in the sky. It’s NEVER going to happen in any reasonable time frame.
Even if you could repeal the relevant Federal drug laws, you would still have the drug laws of the 50 states (and probably city and county laws too) to contend with. To change all the laws across the Union would require a major sweeping shift in Americans’ attitudes toward drugs. (Right now, even marijuana is still illegal in nearly all states.)
And given the 100 years of scare-talk propaganda since the Harrison Narcotics Act (1914) criminalized drugs for the first time and sent us on our very own Hundred Years’ War, I doubt such a change in attitude is coming.
There was far more support in America for health care reform than for legalizing heroin, and yet look how much trouble THAT has gotten into.
It would be nice for some left-wing state like Vermont to put its money where its mouth is and try a heroin maintenance program for addicts instead of prison. It’s easier to take such a first step at the state level than the Federal level.
22 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Sinz
It needs to be done gradually for sure. But we need to start.
23 sinz54 // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Chekote: It’s nice as a long-term goal; but for the shorter-time problem of what to do about Afghanistan, it’s irrelevant.
For the immediate future, we’re still going to have the Taliban to fight in Pakistan, and al-Qaeda safely in their holes in Waziristan.
So we come back to the same question George Will raised: What do we do about that, right now, this year?
And my answer is this: Give the Pak government just one more year to tear up their understanding with the Taliban, and clean out Waziristan. If they don’t, we will bomb Waziristan ourselves.
I’m not intimidated by the Pak’s nukes. They can’t deliver them to American shores–if we wipe out the terrorists who could deliver them here.
24 barker13 // Sep 1, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Re: Balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:16 pm (#5) –
“Well, now at least we know what to blame the economic collapse in 2008 on. George Bush subordinating everything else to the supreme imperative.”
Four thoughtful posts from four unique perspectives followed by… Balconesfault.
It’s just so damned depressing.
Re: Rodak // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:57 am (#1) –
“If Obama is really playing politics, he will get out of the entire Middle East, a.s.a.p. If he does not, this is one Obama voter who won’t be in his camp next time around.”
I assume you meant NOT “playing politics.”
In any case, thanks for leading off in a non-partisans substantive manner.
(*WINK*)
Re: Balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:39 pm (#12) –
“….Ronald Reagan… … ….the Contras…”
Speaking of opium… are you on crack…?!?! Seriously, Balc. We’re trying to intelligently discussion policy prescriptions for Afghanistan.
Our countrymen are bleeding and dying – along with soldiers of allied nations. The question isn’t so much identifying “the bad guys” as deciding how best to deal with them. American does not have endless blood and treasure to sacrifice. Are large numbers of American troops on the ground in Afghanistan the best way to deal with the situation there and in Pakistan (and potentially in Iran)? I say “no.” I say we play “whack a mole” from the sea and the air – and even there we take pains not to cause more hatred to be built up against us via causing collateral damage.
Do I want the Talaban to again rule Afghanistan? NO! But do I believe we should have tens of thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands – of American troops rotating through that country year after year after year…? NO!
BILL
25 midcon // Sep 1, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:30 pm on Open Forum.
Good idea to have one. Might be a bit unwieldy for NMs technical folks.
Bob McDonnell’s thesis a perfect fit for Regent U (CBN). Or maybe Regent U is a perfect fit for Bob McDonnell. Whichever. While he has the better ideas for Virginia, the thesis might give him a bit of trouble if Deeds can draw enough attention to it. Of course the WAPO is more than happy to give it some ink.
26 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Sinz
I would stop wasting resources to eradicating poppy. Give it an unofficial blessing and focus on dealing with Waziristan as you said. Even if we bomb Waririnstan, we can’t leave Afghanistan as a failed state. This is what George Will and others like him fail to understand is that failed states pose problems for the rest of the world and some are more dangerous than others. The idea that we can just send a few bombs from the coast and everything will be fine, is nonsense. After all, wasn’t that Clinton’s approach? It seems to be AQ was still able to plan 9/11 in between the Tomahawk missiles.
27 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Good idea to have one. Might be a bit unwieldy for NMs technical folks.
Thanks. Please send a message to the editor if it is not too much of an incovenience.
28 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 2:10 pm
I think that thesis is going to hurt. Continuing to fight the cultural wars of the 1960s is killing the GOP.
29 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Re: Balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:16 pm (#5) –
“Well, now at least we know what to blame the economic collapse in 2008 on. George Bush subordinating everything else to the supreme imperative.”
Four thoughtful posts from four unique perspectives followed by… Balconesfault.
Ahh – I see we’re getting AA Bill today, again.
The contention by Frum was that the President needs to subordinate everything right now to winning the war in Afghanistan. I presume that’s a sly way to say all this dedication of resources to things like passing healthcare reform is a detraction to the President, and if we fail in Afghanistan it will be legit to blame Obama for not subordinating his agenda.
Meanwhile, Frum claims that Bush did subordinate everything else to focussing on Iraq between 2006-2008.
And what exactly happened to the US economy during this period?
So we have some choices. Personally, as big a rathole as Afghanistan is right now, I think that as we back away from the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, it’s still a bit more important that the President make the US economy his primary focus.
You may differ, and agree with Frum. I look forward to your compelling argument as to why this is so.
30 djnichol66 // Sep 1, 2009 at 2:27 pm
I’m tired of calling that which is not a war a war. There is no war in Afghanistan. Congress declared no war. It is simply an invasion and occupation. Invasion and occupation implies subjugation but we want the Afghans to be our friends so we don’t subjugate. If there is no group powerful enough to take on the Taliban in Afghanistan besides us then the effort is pointless. The Taliban will just wait us out until we leave just like the Viet Cong waited us out until we left Vietnam.
President Obama has to walk a fine line here. He can’t just have us pack up and leave because there will be a political cost. The right will claim that Obama endangers our national security by leaving Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq have endangered our national security and that is something very difficult for anyone to admit.
The so-called war on drugs was officially declared unwinnable on December 5, 1933 with the ratification of the 21st Amendment. But we continue to fight it. War on poverty, war on terror, war in Iraq, war in Aghanistan, oh my, how we love our wars.
31 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Sorry to go off topic again. But have you guys seen this? Unbelievable.
Did Hitler Want War? By Pat Buchanan
32 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I am so tired of people midlessly repeating that we have endangered our national security by invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Making such a statement requires one to ignore the FACT that we were attacked many times by AQ abroad and on 9/11 BEFORE said invasions. At best, one can say that we have not improved our securitiy. But even that requires the FACT that we have not been attacked since the invasions.
33 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Last OT for the day:
Organizing Against WorldNetDaily
We need to supprt this effort.
34 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:03 pm
” But even that requires the FACT that we have not been attacked since the invasions.
Except that you used the term “the FACT that we were attacked many times by AQ abroad and on 9/11 BEFORE said invasions”.
We most certainly have been attacked by AQ abroad since said invasions, as have our allies. We haven’t had a major domestic attack from AQ since the invasions, but then it was a long time between the first quasi-AQ attack on the WTC, and 9/11.
It is hard to judge the efficacy of strategies when the metrics seem to not be consistent.
35 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Pretty funny on Buchanan. I don’t suppose that he’s looked into the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact anytime recently, has he?
36 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:09 pm
We most certainly have been attacked by AQ abroad since said invasions, as have our allies.
Allies have been attack because AQ knows they can be intimidated. I don’t recall any attacks on us unless you are counting the warfare in said countries. In any case, to say that we have been endagered is not correct. You can say nothing has improved at best.
37 Rodak // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:28 pm
**I assume you meant NOT “playing politics.” **
No, I meant exactly what I said. If he were calculating his every move based on politics, he would not be alienating people like me, who formed his base and put him in office, by prolonging the war and baling out on a national health plan. If he doesn’t START playing politics, and STOP driving his base into the weeds, he’s toast.
For these reasons, I’m totally convinced that Obama is doing what he thinks is best for the country right now, and NOT playing politics.
What I think (and most of his eroding base along with me) is that if he DID play politics, he’d be doing the right thing for the country.
38 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Chekote: “In any case, to say that we have been endagered is not correct. You can say nothing has improved at best.”
Well, there are two kinds of evidence – empirical evidence (eg – how many attacks have we actually incurred?) … and opinion (what do specific experts conclude?)
For example, when Cheney runs around on Sunday mornings advocating more torture, he’s really just offering an opinion. Conversely, there are numerous experts, including members of the Allied Command in the Middle East, who have voiced the opinion that how we diverted resources from Afghanistan to Iraq has harmed our war against terrorism, which theoretically would mean endangered us.
I’m happy with either definition, as long as everyone understands which one is being used – both have their values, both have their limitations. I think that the political process is ill served when people making arguments shift back and forth between them, though, without noting the distinction.
39 barker13 // Sep 1, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Re: Rodak // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:28 pm (#38) –
Ahh… ok… I was looking at it from a “general perspective” rather than just concentrating on people like you.
(*WINK*)
“I’m totally convinced that Obama is doing what he thinks is best for the country right now, and NOT playing politics.”
Ahh… partisanism from a different direction. I get ya, Rob! (*WINK*)
Or… perhaps it’s ME who is being partisan… or perhaps just cynical. (*SHRUG*)
Seri0usly… no $hit… I don’t know myself. (*GRIN*)
Here’s the thing, though, Rob – and we’re covering “old ground” here – Obama largely shares the same bankrupt ideal of American Imperialism as do those boggymen of yours on the right.
Bush favored encircling Russia with an expansionary NATO…
McCain favored encircling Russia with an expansionary NATO…
Obama favored – and still favors – encircling Russia with an ever expanding NATO…
Bush favored policies which “outsource” American jobs to China…
McCain favored policies which “outsource” American jobs to China…
Obama favored – and still favors – policies which outsource American jobs to China…
(*SHRUG*)
Hey… back on point… whether or not Obama BELIEVES he’s “doing what he thinks best” for the country with regard to our policy in Afghanistan…
HE’S WRONG.
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
40 MSheridan // Sep 1, 2009 at 5:24 pm
I won’t be a bit surprised if Afghanistan proves ultimately to be a doomed conflict, but I believe it is not yet a lost cause. Nor do I believe it is one we should abandon at this time. This may surprise those of you who know me to be a liberal poster on this site, but not all liberals are in agreement that we should leave. At least not yet.
We cannot effectively wage war by remote control in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Should we try to do so, we will only allow the Taliban that has largely retreated into Pakistan to flow back and forth over the Af/Pak border and render the Pakistan counterinsurgent efforts completely useless. Moreover, if we lose focus in Afghanistan, the Taliban will have an excellent chance of winning in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nukes. Even setting the nukes aside, leaving Al Qaeda and the Taliban next door to India with no buffer between them would prove disastrous, and not just regionally.
The two problems hindering our efforts in Afghanistan are the incredibly corrupt government we have to work with (everyone knows Hamid Karzai’s brother is a warlord and drug smuggler) and the fact that the Pashtuns (~45% of population) in the south where we’re fighting are overrepresented in that government but think it’s selling them out to the Tajiks. Meanwhile, the Tajik, Uzbek, and Hazara minorities lack the power to move the country in a more stable direction.
However, I think it makes sense to attempt to build up governments at the local level, esp. in the south, and I am somewhat heartened that this seems to be the strategic direction we’re trying to move toward. As a liberal, naturally I oppose turning this into another Vietnam-like meatgrinder with vague and impossible objectives for our troops. However, although I don’t think we’ve been focused enough on our goals in Afghanistan in the past (and by that I mean no denigration of our troops in any way), I think it is still just barely possible to retrieve our mistakes.
41 anniemargret // Sep 1, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Chekote: “But even that requires the FACT that we have not been attacked since the invasions.”
And have you ever walked the streets of Manhattan on a bright, sunny day, where thousands are walking along with you for 30 blocks upwards and back? Where the old lady standing on the street corner waiting for the light to chance next to you could be a terrorist? Do you honestly believe that if they wanted to attack us, they couldn’t have?
A suitcase bomb hidden in a ’suitcase’ of a ordinary looking person on the streets of Manhattan could happen anytime, any place. There simply isn’t enough security in the world to prevent such a happening. Suicide bombers could ride the Manhattan buses with impunity and no one would now until they unleashed their bombs. All it would take is a few evil souls bombing some buses and spreading the terror. NYC would again be in a tailspin of fear and economic downturn.
Bush and Cheney ginned up the rosters of terrorists by their abandonment of victory in Afghanistan and the capture of Bin Laden, to pursue their geo-political dream of ‘democratizing the Middle East’ in Iraq.
And no, I don’t think sacrificing 4500 American soldiers, nearly 31,000+ wounded, nor billions spent and draining our military with 2 and 3 tours was worth ‘taking out’ Saddam.
42 MSheridan // Sep 1, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Re: anniemargret’s last sentence above, neither do I.
43 Rodak // Sep 1, 2009 at 5:54 pm
**Ahh… partisanism from a different direction.**
There is absolutely nothing wrong with partisanship. Your “party” thinks things should be done this way; my “party” thinks things should be done that way. I voted for Obama because I thought that if elected he would do certain things in certain ways. He has, thus far, failed to be partisan enough to satisfy me. I voted for him because of his left-leaning ideological positions, which I share. If he fails to be partisan enough to put his stated ideology into effect (or at the very least try his damnedest to do so) then he loses me. I didn’t vote for a moderate; I voted for a lefty. Moderates are wishy-washy, go-long-to-get-along, valueless mediocrities. They exist only to be pulled this way, or that, by people who have ideals and agendas; they are political “cannon fodder,” drones, soulless statistics.
44 Rodak // Sep 1, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Anniemargret, I do like the way you think.
45 anniemargret // Sep 1, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Truth is subordinate now to ‘truthiness.’
It’s never good, no matter which party devolves into it.
46 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 6:19 pm
annie
The 9/11 attack and the 93 attack happened BEFORE any invasion. You can disagree with the rationale of the Iraq War. Its management. But you are not entitled to your own facts. Fact: 9/11 happened before any invasion. FACT: we have not domestically been attacked since. The reality is that other attacks were prevented by aggressive tactics. Frankly, I don’t trust Obama and its team to do what is necessary to keep us safe. They are too worried about PR with the rest of the world for my taste.
Bush and Cheney ginned up the rosters of terrorists by their abandonment of victory in Afghanistan and the capture of Bin Laden, to pursue their geo-political dream of ‘democratizing the Middle East’ in Iraq.
We don’t whether Bush and Cheney ginned up the terrorist rosters. Is there a terrorist registration center that tracks their numbers? Even if they did, they were not able to carry out another attack under Bush. We’ll see what happens under Obama. And we went to Iraq because we thought Hussein had WMDs. Regime change in Iraq was a policy adopted by the Clinton Administration in 1998. Nothing to do with democratizing. Once there, we had to stabilize the place because of the oil supplies in the region which are KEY to the global economy.
47 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 6:56 pm
parsing Chekote: Fact: 9/11 happened before any invasion. FACT: we have not domestically been attacked since. The reality is that other attacks were prevented by aggressive tactics.
let’s break it down!
Fact: 9/11 happened before any invasion.
True. Although the US did have troops in the Middle East, which was in fact a primary grievance cited by Bin Laden prior to 9/11. From a 1997 interview with Peter Arnett:
As for what you asked whether jihad is directed against US soldiers, the civilians in the land of the Two Holy Places (Saudi Arabia, Mecca and Medina) or against the civilians in America, we have focused our declaration on striking at the soldiers in the country of The Two Holy Places. The country of the Two Holy Places has in our religion a peculiarity of its own over the other Muslim countries. In our religion, it is not permissible for any non-Muslim to stay in our country.
FACT: we have not domestically been attacked since.
True. Nor had we been attacked domestically in the 8 years prior to 9/11.
The reality is that other attacks were prevented by aggressive tactics.
Well, I note you seem to be differentiating between demonstrable facts, and your view of “reality”.
What also happened in the meantime, besides the “aggressive tactics”?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm
Tuesday, 29 April, 2003, 15:16 GMT 16:16 UK
US pulls out of Saudi Arabia
The United States has said that virtually all its troops, except some training personnel, are to be pulled out of Saudi Arabia.
So what was successful, Chekote … aggression, or appeasement?
48 anniemargret // Sep 1, 2009 at 9:01 pm
ireign: Who’s arguing with you? Where did I say that we should ‘do nothing?’ The contention was that Bush prevented all out attack on the U.S. And I said there were other possibilities that existed then and still exist. Terrorism ‘experts’ cannot point to any single solid theory why we were not attacked again. I have already given kudos to Bush for increased vigilance.
This whole argument is political, isn’t it? I was merely pointing out that logic dictates that just because we have not have had a full frontal major attack, does not mean we are still not seriously vulnerable in other ways. The contention by Republicans is that there is no way, any way, under Bush and Cheney could this happen. It’s a political argument, and full of holes. Obama will have the same problem.
And what’s your problem with Colbert? His ‘truthiness’ was right on the mark. ….and a lot easier (and hilarious) to take than Beck.
.
49 anniemargret // Sep 1, 2009 at 9:18 pm
barker: I agree with you about Afghanistan.
Lordy, Lordy…will wonders never cease?
And Chekote: oil as ‘key to the global economy’ is the wrong direction. HC did a great show about the ‘future global wars for oil” ….get your kids, and your grandkids ready then for more war. At some point, we will deplete our military resources for good. You really want to put the USA in the hands of unstable nations? Our dependency on oil is increasing by the year…and world oil production peaked years ago.
If we were smarter, we would be working on developing renewable energy sources and get off the oil! We would be in a position of power and ahead of the game, as other countries are already galvanized in that direction. We can create new jobs and a new economy.
50 anniemargret // Sep 1, 2009 at 9:59 pm
ireign: Stop with the ‘hack’ attacks,’ already . Everyone on this site is a ‘hack’ in some way (…including you). And I apologize for my ‘kudos to Bush’ ….I had thought I had done it in my last blog entry, so you are correct and I am wrong. But I do think Bush increased vigilance after 9/11…but argument was other..
As for your contention that Bush’s Iraq war did not increase the rosters of terrorists…
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html
The debate here is whether it is advisable to keep the troops in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and there are mixed opinions. That’s good, I think. It is not an easily solvable problem and I’m glad I won’t have to make it.
I don’t take Colbert ’seriously’ as I don’t take Beck ’seriously.’ Really now…give me *some credit.* I was just joking.
51 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:30 pm
The United States has said that virtually all its troops, except some training personnel, are to be pulled out of Saudi Arabia.
So what was successful, Chekote … aggression, or appeasement?
The troops were stationed in Saudia Arabia at the request of the Saudis after Hussein invaded Kuwait. Once Hussein was removed. There is no reason to continue having troops in Saudi Arabia. I would say, aggression got the job done. Besides, our troops are better stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan so that we can have Iran cornered while we distabilize the regime by aiding the growing democracy movement there. Once regime change in Iran is achieved, we can look forward to settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and have REAL Peace.
52 anniemargret // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Democrats supported Bush’s war in Afghanistan to dismantle the Taliban, al quaeda and capture Bin Laden. He had a 90% + approval rating after the 9/11 attack. The Iraq contention was that Saddam was linked to 9/11 and that his threat was an ‘imminent’ one. Apples and oranges.
53 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:35 pm
ireign
Yugoslavia posed a real and present danger to America. You know, those Serb Jihadists. That’s why we had to bomb it into submission.
54 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:40 pm
The Iraq contention was that Saddam was linked to 9/11 and that his threat was an ‘imminent’ one
No one ever said that Hussein sponsored the 9/11 attacks. That is another lie that the Left has been repeating for 8 years along with the unsubstatiated claims that the terrorist numbers had rocketed because of the Iraq War. After 9/11, the Bush administration decided not to take any chances that someone like Hussein with terrorist ties and WMDs could aid a biological, dirty bomb attack on the US. You live in NYC right? Were you afraid immediately after 9/11 that another attack would come? What did you want the president to do? Sit and wait for another attack or keep his fingers crossed that it would not happen again? What was your solution regarding preventing another attack?
55 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:42 pm
I think we can agree that Somalia was not a threat to us.
And perhaps someday we can all agree that American involvement in Somalia came when George HW Bush sent thousands of US troops into Somalia in December 1992?
A funny thing happened when a Democratic President escalated our involvement in Vietnam. He realized he wouldn’t be able to win a re-nomination and dropped out of the race. Meanwhile, as big a debacle as Iraq already was in 2004, there was no wiff of a primary challenge to George Bush.
Kosovo is what happens when you expand a treaty organization too large – you end up getting dragged into conflicts based on obligations that may not necessarily make sense. This is a useful cautionary tale as we seek to further expand NATO into the Caucuses.
56 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:48 pm
That is EXACTLY the same reason I supported the Iraq War.
Ditto.
57 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:50 pm
No one ever said that Hussein sponsored the 9/11 attacks. That is another lie that the Left has been repeating for 8 years
Yet oddly enough … the more one listened to supposedly liberal media, the less likely one was to believe this lie … while the more one followed news through Fox, the more likely one was to believe it.
See chart on Page 13
58 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Kosovo is what happens when you expand a treaty organization too large – you end up getting dragged into conflicts based on obligations that may not necessarily make sense.
Kosovo did not pose as a threat to anyone. It was an intenal fight in what was left of the old Yugoslavia.
59 Chekote // Sep 2, 2009 at 12:01 am
Misperceptions included were that evidence of Iraq-al Qaeda links have been found, WMD have been found and world public opinion favored Iraq war.
Is this what you are referring to? If yes. Zarqawi (AQ) left Afghanistan and re-settled in Iraq. This was 2002. Why were AQ terrorists moving to Iraq? How was this possible without Hussein’s approval? To say that there were NO LINKS between Iraq and AQ is just not factual. In any case I stand by my statement that no one in the Bush Administration said that Hussein directed or participated in the 9/11 attack. As far as WMDs, Hussein had them according to the UN. Hussein also failed to provide any proof that he had destroyed the WMDs. Finally, if the Dems want to continue refighting the rationale for the Iraq War and blaming Bush for every ill in the world, it is fine with me. They will get killed the next election as the majority of Americans have moved on and now only care about how well Obama performs as POTUS.
60 balconesfault // Sep 2, 2009 at 4:53 am
Actually, I was referring specifically to this poll question:
“Is it your impression that the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization?”
Yes (by primary media source):
PBS/NPR – 16%
Print media – 4o%
ABC – 45%
CNN – 48%
NBC – 49%
CBS – 56%
Fox – 67%
Meanwhile – Zarqawi? Keep up, man.
Hussein’s Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted
Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 6, 2007
Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides “all confirmed” that Hussein’s regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.
The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community’s prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.
61 barker13 // Sep 2, 2009 at 6:53 am
Re: Anniemargret // Sep 1, 2009 at 9:18 pm (#51) –
“barker: I agree with you about Afghanistan. Lordy, Lordy…will wonders never cease?”
(*GRIN*)
Hey… it’s just a simple statistical exercise; you can’t ALWAYS be wrong!
(*FRIENDLY PAT ON THE BACK WHILE CHUCKLING*)
BILL
62 anniemargret // Sep 2, 2009 at 7:33 am
http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm
They didn’t get their beliefs from the ‘liberal media.’
63 sinz54 // Sep 2, 2009 at 9:42 am
I don’t believe in nation-building either.
The British did a good job civilizing India–going after the Thuggees and helping to bust the caste system which included so-called “untouchables”–but that took literally centuries of sometimes brutal operations. Americans won’t accept that.
Besides, the Brits were quite open about wanting a worldwide empire for the sake of empire. The ostensible goal of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan was to fight terrorism. But the top al-Qaeda leadership seems to have fled into Pakistan. The U.S. can and should go after them there.
al-Qaeda has proven itself to be flexible and mobile–moving from country to country as needed. We need to be just as flexible and mobile, and not get tied down to any one country. Bush tied us down in Iraq, which was a mistake. Let’s not get tied down for many more years in Afghanistan.
64 sinz54 // Sep 2, 2009 at 9:51 am
Chekote & balconesfault:
The fatal tactical mistake that the Bush Administration made, was that they could decapitate the Saddam regime, but that the lower levels of society (civil service, police, infrastructure) would remain intact. And so U.S. forces could maintain a “small footprint” in Iraq, and Iraq would continue to function reasonably well under U.S. Military Government, until a new constitution could be written and a new government could be elected.
If that had been true, then when David Kay told Congress in December 2003 that no modern WMD stockpiles could be found in Iraq, the U.S. could have begun a process of withdrawal right then. (Rumsfeld’s original war plan, now declassified under the Freedom of Information Act, called for all U.S. troops to be withdrawn by December 2006.)
But we learned a hard lesson: The regimes of developing countries are personality cults. If you decapitate the personality, there’s often nothing left underneath.
As soon as Saddam fell, civil order collapsed, looting broke out, and ancient ethnic hatreds resumed. Terrorists and criminal gangs soon took advantage. Rumsfeld’s “small footprint” of 130,000 troops was totally inadequate to suppress anarchy. (Studies have shown that effective occupation requires a ratio of 1 soldier to every 50 civilians, which in Iraq’s case would have meant 520,000 U.S. troops to police the country.)
At that point, we were STUCK in Iraq. We couldn’t get out without leaving exactly the type of failed state we had said had given al-Qaeda safe havens. And so, instead of withdrawing, we got ourselves into a major counterinsurgency war. Rumsfeld had never believed that would happen.
65 sinz54 // Sep 2, 2009 at 9:52 am
anniemargaret #67:
The link you posted is broken.
66 sinz54 // Sep 2, 2009 at 10:04 am
Chekote:
In 2002, Zarqawi went to Iraq and set up shop in the Kurdistan region.
Given the poor relations between Saddam and the Kurds, this doesn’t sound to me like it was organized by Saddam.
67 wrs10 // Sep 2, 2009 at 10:17 am
Quite little forum is building up here!
Anyway, back to square one:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8233980.stm
2 September 2009
A member of the Nigerian Islamist sect behind a deadly uprising in July has confessed to receiving military training in Afghanistan, police say.
The member of the sect known locally as Boko Haram and Taliban said he had been paid $5,000 (£3,000) to do the training and promised $30,000 on his return.
The uprising in northern Nigeria left some 700 people dead, mostly militants. ………………….For years Western diplomats have feared a al-Qaeda sleeper cell might launch attacks on oil infrastructure in Nigeria, which is increasingly large supplier for the US……………….
68 Chekote // Sep 2, 2009 at 11:46 am
Sinz
Zarqawi went to Iraq to fight against Kurd nationalists. He fit the Hussein agenda to a Tee.
69 balconesfault // Sep 2, 2009 at 11:57 am
sinz: “The fatal tactical mistake that the Bush Administration made, was that they could decapitate the Saddam regime, but that the lower levels of society (civil service, police, infrastructure) would remain intact.”
It was worse than that – because you’re not considering the whole process of “de-Baathification”.
There was absolutely no way for the “lower levels of society (civil service, police, infrastructure) (to) remain intact” … because we deliberately banned virtually everyone who had held any level of responsibility in those organizations from having a job in Paul Bremer’s Iraq.
There’s a lot of reasons to believe that this wasn’t just stupidity – it was stupidity based on ideology. The neocons with little or no foreign policy experience who staffed the CPA were there to dismantle everything socialist (ie – the Baath Party infrastructure), and rebuild a new country to show what oil revenues and unfettered capitalism could accomplish.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48543-2004May22.html
When Ledeen’s group showed up at the palace — with their North Face camping gear, Abercrombie & Fitch camouflage and digital cameras — they were quite the spectacle. For some, they represented everything that was right with the CPA: They were young, energetic and idealistic. For others, they represented everything that was wrong with the CPA: They were young, inexperienced, and regarded as ideologues.
Several had impressive paper credentials, but in the wrong fields. Greco was fluent in English, Italian and Spanish; Burns had been a policy analyst focused on family and health care; and Ledeen had co-founded a cooking school. But none had ever worked in the Middle East, none spoke Arabic, and few could tell a balance sheet from an accounts receivable statement.
Other staffers quickly nicknamed the newcomers “The Brat Pack.”
“They had come over because of one reason or another, and they were put in positions of authority that they had no clue about,” remembered Army Reserve Sgt. Thomas D. Wirges, 38, who had been working on rehabilitating the Baghdad Stock Exchange.
Some also grumbled about the new staffers’ political ties. Retired U.S. Army Col. Charles Krohn said many in the CPA regard the occupation “as a political event,” always looking for a way to make the president look good.
70 brutus1791 // Sep 2, 2009 at 2:18 pm
First of all: THE John Batchelor????
If so that would be phenomenal.
Secondly, nobody here has asked whether this makes Mr. George Will a member of Mr. Frum’s “Unpatriotic Conservatives” list? http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp
71 barker13 // Sep 2, 2009 at 4:32 pm
ReL Brutus1791 // Sep 2, 2009 at 2:18 pm (#75) –
“First of all: THE John Batchelor???”
Yeah. I was wondering the same thing.
(*SMILE*)
“…Mr. Frum’s “Unpatriotic Conservatives” list…”
NICE get!
(*WINK*)
BILL
72 Loss of Will - The Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com // Sep 9, 2009 at 4:55 pm
[...] maybe he’s not so much inside anymore, at least on this issue. David Frum writes that “What is being said by George Will in public is already being muttered in private by congressional Democrats,” and therein lies [...]
You must log in to post a comment.