As much as I appreciate a good public relations campaign, nothing will make Afghanistan into anything but what it always has been. A place where empires go to die.
Afghanistan is not just going to be deadly for our Soldiers. It will be deadly for our economy. We spent hundreds of billions in Iraq so "We would have a Democratic Ally in the region." Iran has more influence than we do. The little fat bastard El Sadr hides his little fat ass in Iran and spews his anti America bile. He is in charge of an army of nuts in Iraq that behead people and whip and kill women for having a piece of flesh exposed. Yeah. Our billions made a real difference in Iraq.
Same thing in Afghanistan only the cost will run into the trillions. And where is the world? Russia and China will veto our resolutions in the U.N. Security Council. We can't even get the world to punish North Korea, as brutal a regime as there is because of Russia and China.
Where is the world on the War on Terror. It's willing to pat us on the back and say go get em as long as we're paying the bills with American Lives and money. Russia was defeated in the Cold War by our economic system. Not to take anything away from Lech Walesa or Pope John Paul II. This is Russia's revenge. Drain our treasury in a world war while they sit back sipping Vodka and laughing at our foolishness.
There is no victory in Afghanistan. Our "allies" whether it's Pakistan or a tribal lord, are the best friends we can bribe. It's time to get the world off our payroll. We have an economy in collapse. Let's protect our borders and our Nation. The world wants us back it has to be on our terms.
28 comments:
A once brillant philosopher, George W. Bush, acknowledged that the United States was not any good at nation building and it was something we need to stay out of...
Sadly, the siren call for power and blood letting suckered us in the biggest disaster we could imagine; and Pakistan is not any different than Afghanistan.
Two failed states sucking us dry...
Wonder why GWB did not listen to GWB?
Makes sense to me. I'm for getting out of these wars that are wasting our troops and eating up our economy.
Thanks Sue. I don't mean to say I'm against getting bad guys. If we're going to do it, we need to do it right. Half ass got us the mess that is Iraq. The same thing is happening in Afghanistan. We can't nation build alone. If the world will not help with money and manpower the world needs to live with the consequences. The people of the Phillipines ousted Marcos without our help. Hopefully one day, other nations that live under oppresive regimes will do the same. But to go where we are not welcome is a waste of money and more importantly, a needless sacrifice of lives.
I agree. One of bin Laden's stated reasons for the 9/11 attack was to drag us into an unwinnable war in Afghanistan. Bush not only took the bait but gave him a present by taking out his enemy Saddam Hussein.
By dragging us into the Afghan theater, bin Laden knew he would be able to suck the U.S. economy dry. He knows that when the country goes bankrupt, we will finally have to recede from our empire. All empires fall. Ones that don't fall from conquest go bankrupt and return home.
We have to understand our limits. We can't take out every regime we don't like or every regime we decide is a human rights violator. There has to be a threat to our security from the nation and a Taliban-led Afghanistan never threatened us. It's al Qaeda who threatens us. Keep your eye on the prize.
We're not wanted in Afghanistan and the strategic objective of that mass grave of a country long ago passed. My vote is to get out. We should be defending our own country. I know we'll get out someday, but it won't be pretty.
This Truth101 isn't as dumb as I thought he was.
Why do we end up fighting these smaller wars? We have military brass that talks a president into it that doesn't know any better.
Don't we have enough problems at home to take care of? Bush couldn't even finish his war before he left office and now Obama not only has the problem with the economy, but will have to deal with the wars.
The important issues here at home will remain unattended to.
Yes, most countries seem to work out their issues better without our help (read as interference).
It wasn't so much the military that sold Bush on Iraq but neoconservatives in the administration like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Doug Feith, just to name a few. These people want an American Empire in the Middle East and 9/11 was their big opportunity to use the U.S. military for conquest. That's why dirt poor countries like Iraq and Iran, who had absolutely nothing to do with that atrocity, are suddenly threats to the greatest military might on the planet.
Neocons like these small wars not only because few if any of them have ever served, but because they can be won fairly quickly, in the traditional military sense. But small groups like al Qaeda or other guerilla bands can eventually win by exhausting the military and their country's economy. They win by simply not losing (a concept that should not be lost on Americans, who won their independence in much the same way). We would not be the first world power to exit in humiliation and bankruptcy by a far smaller force.
Absolutley correct Carl.
Now I'm not a pacifist. If a war needs to be fought it needs to be fought. But the proper force must be committed. I was against the Iraq invasion from the start. But of they were going to do it, do as Bush Sr. did and mass enough troops and get enough support from around the world to do it right. Bush jr. failed. Our Country is worse off.
I'm no pacifist either, just antiwar. It's one thing if we want to go after people who do attack us, that's justifiable according to the theory of just war. It's another thing entirely if we simply go anywhere in the world and do whatever we want and think we won't incite hatred - that's how we got 9/11 in the first place.
And everytime one of our soldiers accidentally kills an innocent Afghan, that recruits another fighter into the insurgency. It doesn't matter to them if the death was an accident but those deaths are inevitable in the wars we're fighting right now.
Carl Wicklander said...
These people want an American Empire in the Middle East and 9/11 was their big opportunity to use the U.S. military for conquest.
_________________________________
If you bothered to read on the middle east and anything on Bin Laden or Al Qaeda, you would know that they, not Bush, have us exactly where they want us.
That's why dirt poor countries like Iraq and Iran, who had absolutely nothing to do with that atrocity, are suddenly threats to the greatest military might on the planet.
_________________________________
Carl, perhaps you should read a book called "Guests of the Ayatollah" by Mark Bowden, it's about the 1979-80 Iran Hostage Crisis. It goes over Carter's SHORT WAR that you mention, Desert One, a military disaster. Iran and all fundamentalists in Islam want the west to either disappear or submit to Islam. Achmadinijhad has made no secret of this, nor has Bin Laden.
Neocons like these small wars not only because few if any of them have ever served, but because they can be won fairly quickly, in the traditional military sense. But small groups like al Qaeda or other guerilla bands can eventually win by exhausting the military and their country's economy. They win by simply not losing (a concept that should not be lost on Americans, who won their independence in much the same way).
__________________________________
Mao Tse Tung wrote a book on insurgencies. The book was used in Cuba by Castro and Guevarra and is used by the IRA and Hizbollah and Al Qaeda (not a small group as you say, they have cells in ALL countries, except Antarctica and Greenland, and maybe Iceland.). It talks of the Protracted Unpopular War which goes into alot of what you are saying.
Here is the problem: The terrorist groups want us there. If we don't go there, they will come here. So, since YOU don't want to fight them, someone does.
It isn't neocon propaganda or anything else. It's a fact.
I agree with Truth on one thing: We cannot win a war in Afghanistan. It is a war based on Islamic exterrmist/fundamentalist ideology at the base.
I know full well about Islam and how the goal is to see the West either eradicated or submitted to the will of Allah. It's a violent religion, not one of peace. The prophet Mohammed himself was a warlord.
And I know full well that they are more than happy that we are there. It makes it all the easier for them to launch attacks on us. Michael Scheuer, the former head of the bin Laden unit at the CIA says as much in his books (an expert on Osama bin Laden and author of books, I might add, that are on the Middle East!). Scheuer also says that our foreign policy has followed the exact path bin Laden desired. Just being over there plays into bin Laden's goals. And the longer we are over there means more terrorists can be recruited making this war even more unwinnable.
But there are a billion Muslims and not all of them are united with each other against us. The ones who are united against us are united because they view us as a force that has been occupying the Middle East for decades. Muslims end up fighting with each other just as much as they are against us. If we left the region a caliphate would not instantly appear. The internecine fighting would continue. It's the reason the Iranian Revolution never spread - once the hated shah was gone, all the factions that were united in the revolution split off. And once we leave the Middle East, all their fighting will once again be directed at each other.
Islam is also not a new faith. Islam has had a long time to try to submit the West to Allah. It's working in the sense that mass immigration and lack of assimilation on their part is doing it as can be seen in Europe.
You say that if we don't fight them over there they will fight us over here. Well, we went an awfully long time without a terrorist attack from the Middle East.
Here's a question: Why is it that? Why did we did not start to face terrorist attacks until after we began meddling in the Middle East? Did it really take Muslims 200 years to figure out that we're free and rich over here?
They brought the fight to us over here because we have already been over there.
If we don't understand that it is our military presence in the Middle East that inspires Muslims to become terrorists, we will undoubtedly continue to see terrorist attacks in one way or another.
One final note: U.S.-Iranian relations did not begin in 1979 with the revolution and hostage crisis. In 1953, our CIA helped orchestrate a coup that overthrew a democratic government and imposed the hated shah on the Iranian people. If we think that this timeline can be ignored, any foray into Iran will be devastating.
Carl, way too factual and intelligent for a majority of Americans.
Got to keep it at a level of "support the troops" "support our President" "threat to our freedom" "Democracy" and you will hit a homerun.
Wow, carl. Google took a while for you.
Operation Ajax, 1953 CIA overthrow displaced the original Iranian government, put in the Shaw. Knowing this does nothing except make you think that we are imperialists. We are not. We paid the price and luckily in that one, it wasn't too high.
We had the WTC bobming #1, so what was your point. We also had many terrorists attacking US tourists abroad before 911. the Pan Am flight that fell over lockerbie, Scotland. The TWA plane that was hijacked in 1985. The Achillie Lauro resulted in the death of one American. The assassination and kidnapping of many high-level people.
Also, we did not meddle in the middle east, unless by meddling you mean to put right what the sykes picot treaty of the 20's between the brits and french set wrong with THEIR imperialism.
I choose to ignore the foolish comment made by Tao, you and he might want to think about setting a date.
Saying that we dont need to be in the world, calling American interests abroad a mistake and inventing history as you go doesn't make it true.
Carl, also, you might want to read the book "Milestones" by Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian that talks of an Islamic move to the west because of our "Western ways".
Abul Mawdudi, an Indian Muslim scholar talked of Jihad:
“In the jihad in the way of Allah, active combat is not always the role on the battlefield, nor can everyone fight in the front line. Just for one single battle preparations have often to be made for decades on end and the plans deeply laid, and while only some thousands fight in the front line there are behind them millions engaged in various tasks which, though small themselves, contribute directly to the supreme effort.” Mawdudi further states, “A time will come when Communism will fear for its survival in Moscow, Capitalistic democracy will tremble for its safety in Washington and New York.” “The objective of Islamic Jihad is to put an end to the dominance of the un-Islamic systems of government and replace them with Islamic rule, Islam intends to bring about this revolution not in one country or in a few countries but in the entire world.” That was 1948.
You can think that it's just US intervention, but it isn't many Islamic scholars over the years have put forth the concept of one world under Islam. Doesn't sound to me like you want that.
I'm not trying to minimize death here, but the number of casualties in the attacks you've mentioned are rather small compared to the big scheme of things. That's all that Muslim terrorists can muster - relatively little attacks here and there. These attacks are not bringing down our civilization. And in what way have those attacks physically weakened America and made a North American Caliphate more possible?
I know full well that Muslims wish to supplant all non-Muslim regimes but they don't have the means to do so. Just saying that that's what they want doesn't make it likely. They do too much in-fighting to come close to accomplishing that. And they've got a lot of work left to do in their hemisphere before we need to actually worry about that.
The closest they can come right now is through the mass immigration and non-assimilation that set France ablaze a few summers ago.
But not all Muslims are united against us. You mention the TWA flight of 1985. The terrorists in that case were Shia. Al Qaeda is Sunni. Shia and Sunni are each other's enemy. They barely have enough time to stop shooting each other to turn to Western powers.
All they can put together are these relatively small terrorist attacks. Again, I'm not trying to minimize the deaths of innocents, it's just that they are not going to take over our country by doing these little attacks. It's absurd. It's equally absurd to think we can force their countries to become more Western through nation-building. According to your own logic, they won't stand for it. Then why should our military be there potentially making a bad situation worse?
And meddling is meddling. And if you're right, then why, in the first place, are we enforcing treaties on behalf of the British and French?
Should we just make it easier on ourselves and bomb every Muslim country into dust? If I'm reading you correctly, that seems to be the only outcome you think will work. Annihilation.
I'm done trying to reason here. You have no concrete stance as most of the bloggers in here.
Does NOT matter what sect of Islam, one thing is a constant current throughout it's evolution, hatred of outside influence. The influence doesn't need to be inside the country, either. It just needs to reach their airwaves to be offensive.
Bluepitbull,
We put the Shah in power in 1953 to appease the British because the Iranian PM at the time was attempting to get the same contract with the British that the Americans had with the Saudi's (Aramco).
So then we go off and preach democracy while supporting two very undemocratic regimes (Eqypt and Saudi Arabia) Oh, and call Pakistan an ally when in fact they are nothing more than a failed state.
Every step we have taken in the Middle East we end up getting no where...every time we turn around we are getting warnings that things are not well in the Middle East and yet we want to sink in deeper.
It would be in the best interests of the United States to have realized this long ago and developed alternative energy sources...but no, we keep wanting to get in deeper.
But no, we love our military solutions...and now our military solution is going to get us bogged down in Afghanistan.
If you believe that this is a war of our civilization against Islam then call it that and lets debate that but if you believe like I do, having lived in Saudi Arabia for five years, that it is in our best interests to find alternative fuels and leave them to their own devices then I would just encircle the area and stop them from getting any weapons and tighten the borders of the United States and leave them to their own thing. Kind of like we do with Africa
I figured the right wingers would flock to my side on this one. It was their leader, Rush Limbaugh who said when we Clinton bombed some caves in Afghanistan and we had the Balkan conflict we can't get involved in these foreign things. His words "We can't afford it!"
Even when I agree with them the righties hate me.
You're right, Truth. Sean Hannity was another "antiwar" conservative in the 1990s. Regarding Kosovo he used to say "What's the national interest? What's the exit strategy?" Now questions like that are "anti-American" and "liberal." It's shameful how they sold out. I've said before that war is the LEAST conservative activity in life.
You and TAO start a new party I might leave the Democrats Carl.
Ah, Truth ol' buddy ol' pal...
'the righties' are going to hate you no matter what...
They pretty much hate everything except themselves hating.
You keep on thinking that, I fear for this country and the direction that Obama is leading us. ...
As you know, Trugh101, I disagree with you about Afghanistan for reasons too numerous to rehash here. The war is quite winnable, though it will take time.
But you do state your case well and make good points. The drain on our treasury, and blood of our troops, is as you say something to be seriously considered.
In the end, the best reason for being there is that if we give up al Qaeda will reestablish a base there and will restart plots to attack us. And then we'll face one 9-11 after another. We can and will stop many attacks, but can't stop them all.
I must say I am more that somewhat dismayed by the posts here. Not so much for the reasoning, but the cynicism.
Whatever happened to the American Can-Do spirit? I'm no starry-eyed optimist, but really.
I expect liberals to disagree about Iraq, but Afghanistan?
Sigh.
My problem is that our Nation is the one carrying 95% of the burden. American blood and treasure are sometimes necessary to protect America. I don't see it necessary or fair to defend an ungrateful world with our lives and money. The burden must be shared.
I heard talk like this in the 60's. I didn't understand it then and I don't understand it now. There is no chance of the celluloid cat being chased by the asbestos dog in Hell that I will ever have you guys agreeing with me : but Afghanistan really is worse than Iraq.
Did I mention 30% of the population is at risk of starving to death this winter ? That might reduce opposition somewhat. That's not just snark : check UN alerts.
There's a handy-dandy covering model for what has been done. There have been no mistakes, miscalculations or errors. Don't give me the the spew corporate owners and CEOs don't know exactly what they are doing.They just don't give a rat's ass.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm
I leave you to consider the different 'reasons' troops were deployed to Iraq. Can you list the many tales ? Do they make sense ? Do they explain what's being done now ?
I grew up wondering WTF we kids were being taught the proper method of 'kissing your ass good-bye' in so-called 'Civil Defense Drills'. The Bomb. Mutual Assured Destruction.
For us schnooks the Cuban Missile Crisis looked like 'Dr. Strangelove :or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb' being played out.
Today missiles are to be deployed in what was Eastern Europe over Russian objections. Can anyone spell "Extreme Fucking Problems with Threat Evaluation !"
Islamophobia. I laughed when I first heard the phrase. Attack of the Killer Dhows ! Should make mincemeat of carrier groups.
I know. I'm lost in a place where information is selected for how it aids the storyline of the media fairytales. One last quip
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2009/02/what-do-we-want-in-afghanistan.html
You got way too much going on Old Phart in Training. I don't know if Dr. Biobrain and his IQ of 245 could keep up with you Brother.
Post a Comment