Common Ground Common Sense > A Military Father Wants Answers From the President

Magmak1

Aug 12 2009, 11:03 AM

QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Aug 12 2009, 02:19 PM)

So when do we finally get rid of the puppetmasters ?

And... how ?

"... with staves and musick ..."

" Without entrenched leaders, there could be no chain of command. The people of each locality, although communicating with each other through their committees of correspondence, received no orders from a central authority. They did develop some shared motifs - - most notably, forcing officials to recant while passing through the ranks, hats in hand - - but the local groups operated without any coordinating body to plot a strategy or plan the various confrontations."

" The Massachusetts Revolution of 1774 was not only decentralized but thoroughly ubiquitous. Both temporally and geographically, it lacked concrete definition. It simply erupted, everywhere and whenever. It has been as confusing, perhaps, to students of history as it was to Governor Gage, who had no idea how to respond. "

“... the revolutionaries of 1774 pioneered the concept of participatory democracy, with all decisions made by popular consent. Half a century before these so-called Jacksonian revolution, they demonstrated that ordinary citizens, without shedding blood, could seize control of their government. While more learned patriots expounded on the Lockean principles, these country folk acted according to those principles by declaring their social contract with the established government null and void. Although the consequences were frightening and potentially disastrous, the town folk of Massachusetts was the first American columnists to follow revolutionary rhetoric to its logical conclusion.

All authority derived from the people, they proclaimed, as they deposed British officials. As much as any revolutionaries in history, they applied the statement reflexively upon themselves. They abrogated no authority as they went about their business; they pledged allegiance to no charismatic leaders. In all their committees in conventions, the will of the people was the only master they serve. Democratic to its core, this first American Revolution set a standard for direct political participation that has not been bettered since.”

"It was indeed quite confounding to folks such as Lord Dartmouth who 'found it difficult to believe that Governor Gage had lost out to ' a tumultuous Rabble, without any Appearance of general Concert, or without any Head to advise, or Leader to conduct.' Dartmouth failed to comprehend the power of the people to act in their behalf, and even today, the revelation that ordinary people, ' without any Head to advise,' toppled the British-controlled government in Massachusetts engenders blank, incredulous states.'"

The first two sections and the last were taken from the reviews of the book at Amazon at the link above.

The third, to which I added my own emphases, was just recorded by me from the book.

NiteOwl

Aug 12 2009, 11:20 AM

QUOTE(Magmak1 @ Aug 12 2009, 01:03 PM)

QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Aug 12 2009, 02:19 PM)

So when do we finally get rid of the puppetmasters ?

And... how ?

"... with staves and musick ..."

" Without entrenched leaders, there could be no chain of command. The people of each locality, although communicating with each other through their committees of correspondence, received no orders from a central authority. They did develop some shared motifs - - most notably, forcing officials to recant while passing through the ranks, hats in hand - - but the local groups operated without any coordinating body to plot a strategy or plan the various confrontations."

" The Massachusetts Revolution of 1774 was not only decentralized but thoroughly ubiquitous. Both temporally and geographically, it lacked concrete definition. It simply erupted, everywhere and whenever. It has been as confusing, perhaps, to students of history as it was to Governor Gage, who had no idea how to respond. "

“... the revolutionaries of 1774 pioneered the concept of participatory democracy, with all decisions made by popular consent. Half a century before these so-called Jacksonian revolution, they demonstrated that ordinary citizens, without shedding blood, could seize control of their government. While more learned patriots expounded on the Lockean principles, these country folk acted according to those principles by declaring their social contract with the established government null and void. Although the consequences were frightening and potentially disastrous, the town folk of Massachusetts was the first American columnists to follow revolutionary rhetoric to its logical conclusion.

All authority derived from the people, they proclaimed, as they deposed British officials. As much as any revolutionaries in history, they applied the statement reflexively upon themselves. They abrogated no authority as they went about their business; they pledged allegiance to no charismatic leaders. In all their committees in conventions, the will of the people was the only master they serve. Democratic to its core, this first American Revolution set a standard for direct political participation that has not been bettered since.”

"It was indeed quite confounding to folks such as Lord Dartmouth who 'found it difficult to believe that Governor Gage had lost out to ' a tumultuous Rabble, without any Appearance of general Concert, or without any Head to advise, or Leader to conduct.' Dartmouth failed to comprehend the power of the people to act in their behalf, and even today, the revelation that ordinary people, ' without any Head to advise,' toppled the British-controlled government in Massachusetts engenders blank, incredulous states.'"

The first two sections and the last were taken from the reviews of the book at Amazon at the link above.

The third, to which I added my own emphases, was just recorded by me from the book.

I wouldn't bet on the government being so disorganized today... particularly since the government is owned and operated by those with the most to lose and have invested trillions of dollars of OUR money in developing a system to assure that they (and their control) is protected.

Maybe I'm too cynical...

but I'm not nearly as optimistic given the apathy and disorganization of citizens and given the vested interest in maintaining the system.

Magmak1

Aug 12 2009, 11:56 AM

QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Aug 12 2009, 03:20 PM)

... given the apathy and disorganization of citizens and given the vested interest in maintaining the system.

Therein lies the problem in a nutshell. Too many are too sedate and comfortable to be interested, let alone active, let alone outraged. So then the option is to join the generalized movement to unplug from those people, that system, and anything or anyone who supports it. Why continue to stay plugged in and on the treadmill that keeps such outrageous stuff as the accepted way of doing business? I think one of the points to be made here is that everyone has a choice to make; many have and will continue to do so vapidly, but then they will get what they ask for... vapidity, meaninglessness, pathology, decay and self-destruction. What legacy are we leaving to our children and our grandchildren?

"Grampa, what did you do when ...?"

"Well, sonny, I voted for the folks who wanted to send your father off to war to get his head turned around five times a day -- I'm sorry he frightens you so when he cooks off like that -- and applauded the folks who handed you that bill for thousands of dollars per year for the rest of the next decade and a half so they could sit back in comfort and take a million in bonus dollars, and then I just shrugged my shoulders and went in and turned on my DVD player to watch two movies on my 57" wide-screen ... "Obsessed" and "The Chaos Experiment"." And then I took your mother to the doctor's for her next group session."

tazvil04

Aug 12 2009, 11:57 AM

QUOTE(Magmak1 @ Aug 12 2009, 10:34 AM)

Aug 11, 2009 5:57 pm US/Central
Iraq Contractor KBR Cited By Oversight Commission
WASHINGTON (AP) ― A federal panel has accused Houston-based KBR Inc. of resisting government oversight and failing to cut costs on support work in Iraq.

The allegation comes from the Commission on Wartime Contracting. That's an independent panel examining waste and fraud in wartime spending.

During a hearing before the commission in Washington, the contracting giant defended its performance. Its representatives told commissioners that it was under heavy pressure to meet the urgent demands of military commanders.

But commissioners say KBR's internal accounting and cost estimating systems have been inadequate since 2005. That's led to questionable billings and drawn out arguments with federal auditors over hundreds of millions of dollars in charges.

Commissioner Dov Zakheim said KBR's top managers meet regularly with the Defense Contract Audit Agency. Yet the company has been unable to come up with solutions that satisfy the agency. By comparison, he says Dyncorp International and other large contractors seem to work out their problems quickly.

####

Seems like the federal government is doing its job monitoring their conduct and holding them accountable, though I would think if their record continues their contract would be voided.

Obamageddon: War as the "Solution" to Economic Depression
The Celente thesis

by Justin Raimondo
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=14746

An excerpt: “History has shown that Afghanistan is practically unconquerable, and we could send an army of a million or more and still fail miserably. But think how the endless expenditures will "stimulate" our economy!

Forecaster Celente has identified several bubbles, the latest being the "bailout bubble," slated to pop at any time, yet there may be another bubble to follow what Celente calls "the mother of all bubbles," one that will implode with a resounding crash heard ’round the world – the bubble of empire.
Our current foreign policy of global hegemonism and unbridled aggression is simply not sustainable, not when we are on the verge of becoming what we used to call a Third World country, one that is bankrupt and faces the prospect of a radical lowering of living standards. Unless, of course, the "crisis" atmosphere can be sustained almost indefinitely.”

####

Well, I do not recall Obama saying that he wanted to "conquer" Afghanistan...I believe that stabilize is the terminology he used -- and giving him less than six months for his new approach to work seems to me a little short-sighted, but heck -- who am I -- anyway? He wants to provide support to the Afghan government. There are signs of progress.

Pakistan has a democratic regime.

Its people are united against the Taliban for the first time and are actively engaging them.

The Taliban is fractured.

All of this is progress from where things were last year at this time.

Progress in Afghanistan depends upon progress in Pakistan
http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english...k0.5734064.html

Endless War: The Suicide of the United States
by Dahr Jamail
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=14748

Excerpts: “At the Northwest Regional Winter Soldier event at the Seattle Town Hall in June 2008, psychiatrist Dr. Evan Kanter, president-elect of Physicians for Social Responsibility, spoke at length to the 800-member audience about the crippling impact that the occupation has had on the mental health of the forces. Dr. Kanter specializes in treating vets with PTSD....

Dr. Kanter added that, considering that the US has now deployed well over 1.8 million personnel, so far, to serve in the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, “looking at the PTSD and major depression cases alone will give you three to four hundred thousand psychiatric casualties.”... He added:

PTSD is no less a war wound than a shrapnel injury. It can be tremendously debilitating. Symptoms include nightmares and flashbacks, triggered physiological and psychological stress, social withdrawal, isolation, avoidance of any kind of reminders of the trauma, emotional numbing, uncontrolled outbursts of anger or rage, difficulty concentrating and focusing, and a state of hypervigilance, which the military calls the “battle mind.” All these are symptoms that would make it impossible for a vet with severe PTSD to be in the room with us today. Studies that go back to the Second World War have found that combat veterans are twice as likely to commit suicide as people in the general population. Other lesser-known distressing facts are that 9 percent of all unemployment in the United States is attributed to combat exposure, as is 8 percent of all divorce or separation, and 21 percent of all spousal or partner abuse. The impact of all this extends to behavioral problems in children, child abuse, drug and alcohol addiction, incarceration, and homelessness, all of which have implications that go well beyond the individual and reverberate across generations.

####

I have spoke strongly regarding this all during the Bush Administration's tenure. Now, since the Democrats have taken control of Congress in 2006, there is finally attention focused on this issue. It is debilitating and the sooner we can end the conflict the better. But the worst scenario would be to leave Afghanistan now and let it fall apart, al Qaeda and the TYaliban entrench themselves once again there, and the people lose hope and any desire to ever give the experiment of democracy another chance. Frankly, while this is a sad result of war, I do not see what its relevance is to a thread about why we are in Afghanistan. I see the vagaries of war just about every week in my job. I know it is not trifling at all. But we are there. This is US policy. It has been determined that this is a national security issue and since no one can come up with an alternative method of containing al Qaeda and preventiing a resurgence of the Taliban...this is where we will stay until the Pakistani forces and the Afghan forces are able to nuetralize the Taliban on their own.

Obama's policy in Afghanistan? Is this some game where everyone gets to play armchair general?

He forecast his intentions with regard to Afghanistan in the campaign --- this has been the policy of the Dems since 2005 to call for a transfer of priority from Iraq to Afghanistan. Stop acting like this is a new policy approach that is being implemented...It is no game. It is stark reality and no one is treating it as such.

When are Americans (f*@k the leadership, they're sucking at the MIC cash pipe) gonna wake up and see what has been done to this nation and its people?

By "this nation and its people" who do you mean -- Americans or Afghanis?

Would someone please send me a well-thought out e-mail that explains how any decent conscionable American can support a process of endless war, corporate malfeasance to the point of criminality and pathology, torture, the widespread use of toxics as a weapon of war, and the knowledge that many returning vets (read the article) suffer from PTSD.

I can pose the same type of question to you --- as I have to IStoodForU --- Is there any justification for any war which you would support?

No.

I did not think so -- therefore the answer you are asking for is impossible to provide, but then I think you knew that.

The fact that you want to try and attack Obama for his policy in Afghanistan when he has been transparent about this policy all along is frankly incredible.

And someone else can ask Obama to make a case for the firing of Dov Zakheim. Why he is allowed to be where he is is beyond me.

It is obvious his competence is at issue. He should demand more from KBR -- more competence on their behalf. I agree with you here. But the fact of a contractor's incompetence or malfeasance does not forsake our entire mission in the region.

Just how long is everyone can stay in denial and pretend that what's been going on and continues to go on is having and will continue to have profoundly-negative implications for Main Street America?

Your last sentence is unclear.

Americans will tolerate our presence in Afghanistan so long as they believe a threat exists there...and this is the only way it can be contained.

Come up with another way to contain or diffuse the threat to the US and its allies --- and the stability of the region --- and Americans will start to change their mind about supporting it...

But to date you have yet to even make the case to us on this thread...

rla

Aug 12 2009, 12:43 PM

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 12 2009, 11:12 AM)

My objection to Obama's policy is that he says it is to provide security when it is obviously just to maintain and expand the Impire and hense is done for Wall Street and the Multi-national corporations
and not for the benefit of common ordinary citizens of the US. We pay and they play...

Now that the Oil contracts have been let and we have facilitated as much mutual genocide among the various tribes in Iraq as is cost effective and long term bases established, we can turn most of our attention to wiping out the Pashtun Tribe between Afganistan and Pakistan, strengthen our pupit governments
in these two, "Capitals" and get ready for war with Iran. One of the major principles of the School of Realism in Foreign Policy is to avoid big wars and not have too many small wars at the same time.
Anti-Americanism (emergent leadership) is growing rapidly in Southeast Asia, Africa and South & Central
America. It is therefore important that America looks strong and invincible where we are openly fighting
and sounds cooperative and helpful everywhere else.

Istoodforu

Aug 13 2009, 08:33 AM

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 12 2009, 12:57 PM)

Americans will tolerate our presence in Afghanistan so long as they believe a threat exists there...and this is the only way it can be contained.

Come up with another way to contain or diffuse the threat to the US and its allies --- and the stability of the region --- and Americans will start to change their mind about supporting it...

Taz, you are a true-believer in a monolithic enemy.

Both Cheney/Shrub and now Obama with his centrist advisers pitch the belief to the American public that Islamic militants are a dire threat that must be "wiped out" by US military intervention on foreign soil----As it is in Iraq, it is in Af/Pak, the "war on terrorism" devolves into stalemated counter-insurgency warfare----the result is the perpetual defense of other countries from the people who live in these countries.

There will always be terrorists whether they are Islamic militants in central Asia, leftist insurgents in Latin America, narcotics traffickers fighting over turf, or white supremacists in Montana. These folks do not, however, represent the same kind of dire threat as armies poised on a border to invade, nuclear missiles and bombers targeting cities, or navies blockading vital trade routes. Terrorists become a greater threat when they succeed at provoking a military response that saps a country's blood and treasure and recruits more terrorists among civilians caught up in the fighting.

Civilians typically take the heaviest casualties in military campaigns to "defeat" terrorists. What works better are international efforts that share intelligence and coordinate law enforcement operations that thwart attacks and bring the perps to the bar of justice. What works better is international cooperation to mitigate poverty and curtail the weapons trade. What works better are reforms in health care and law enforcement that mitigate the huge demand for illegal drugs.----better and more accessible drug rehab programs, decriminalization, and legalization.

In the meantime, there are places like the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan that are so remote and inaccessible that they are havens for terrorists and graveyards for armies trying to take control of the region. By the way the list of failed military incursions into these Af/Pac border regions is quite long. When is Obama going to learn something from history?

tazvil04

Aug 13 2009, 09:21 AM

QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 13 2009, 08:33 AM)

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 12 2009, 12:57 PM)

Americans will tolerate our presence in Afghanistan so long as they believe a threat exists there...and this is the only way it can be contained.

Come up with another way to contain or diffuse the threat to the US and its allies --- and the stability of the region --- and Americans will start to change their mind about supporting it...

Taz, you are a true-believer in a monolithic enemy.

I think there is more nuance to my beliefs than you allow here...

I do believe that Al Qaeda is an enemy...if you can show me evidence that I am wrong in this belief, I would welcome it. I also strongly believe the American people are in agreement in this regard -- and President Obama is as well. If I am stubborn in believing conspiracy theories...forgive me...but is a theory is a little "out there" I demand just a little bit more evidence.

I also believe that the Taliban is an enemy to us as well. Not so much because of the threat that they pose to we Americans at home, but rather the threat that they pose to the Afghan and Pakistani peoples and their efforts to democratize their societies.

Now, I wish that al Qaeda and the Taliban would renounce their extemist ways and live in peace...

I abhor killing like the next person...but we can agree that this is unlikely to occur ---

Now, if I have not shared a more nuanced approach it is in the interest of brevity...

All members of the Taliban may not necessarily hold their extremist views...there may be some Afghan and Pakistani tribesmen who are patriots of their states and do not like the meddling of the US...but they have joined the Taliban to repel the lawful efforts of the Pakistani and Afghani governments democratically elected by their peoples...

Both Cheney/Shrub and now Obama with his centrist advisers pitch the belief to the American public that Islamic militants are a dire threat that must be "wiped out" by US military intervention on foreign soil----

That is not what I believe or Obama believes or most of the American public believes IMHO....

I think you have created a bit of a straw man here...

Granted, our efforts against al Qaeda are unlikely to dissipate soon.

However, I can tell you if the Taliban agreed to peace...and the Afghan army proved itself fit to secure its borders and its nation...and the tribal leaders in Afghanistan came together...the US military would significantly reduce its military footprint in Iraq.

The Taliban are Islamic militants -- and I do not believe that they need to be "wiped out" as you suggest.

I do not believe that al Qaeda needs to be wiped out either.

Only contained....and until they can be contained we will be there.

As it is in Iraq, it is in Af/Pak, the "war on terrorism" devolves into stalemated counter-insurgency warfare----the result is the perpetual defense of other countries from the people who live in these countries.

How do you define -- people who live in those countries? Nautralized citizens? Al Qaeda is foreign to Pakistan and Afghanistan. These are not citizens of these nations. These are foreign fighters.

The Taliban is a different story.

But the defense is not perpetual.

Obama just got into office...his additional forces were only recently sent to Afgahnistan - and progress has been made in our efforts even in this short time period.

I think he needs to be given a chance...you think we need to leave ASAP...

But Obama is not doing anything he did not campaign on...

I am for giving him SOME time...not a lot--- just some.

I want us to have a chance to integrate and shift our policy away from military emphasis to a social, political and economic effort....

I believe it can bear fruit. Maybe this is foolish. I pray I am not wrong...

But the stakes if YOU are wrong could be much more grave then if I am wrong...

There will always be terrorists whether they are Islamic militants in central Asia, leftist insurgents in Latin America, narcotics traffickers fighting over turf, or white supremacists in Montana.

No kididng.

These folks do not, however, represent the same kind of dire threat as armies poised on a border to invade, nuclear missiles and bombers targeting cities, or navies blockading vital trade routes.

Well, these people with their hijacking of airplanes came dangerously close to representing the same threat as an army...

After all, please do not forget that 9/11 was the worst attack on the US homeland by foreign elements since the war of 1812.

Did we lose more people than on 9/11 in that war?

No. We lost 2,260.
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/casualties_of_war.htm

This was worse than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor where there were 2,345 deaths.
http://worldwar2history.info/Pearl-Harbor/

So this attack by a non-army was the worst foreign attack on US soil -- ever in our history. 2,819 people died on 9/11 as a result of the attacks.

So please do not try to minimize it.

What do you consider a dire threat after all?

These terrorists are also trying to get their hands on a nuclear weapon as well. This is their goal. They did not engage in the attacks on 9/11 and call it quits. They are actively engaged in efforts to kill more Americans and more of our allies. They are not stoppinig.

Terrorists become a greater threat when they succeed at provoking a military response that saps a country's blood and treasure and recruits more terrorists among civilians caught up in the fighting.

Terrorists success when idiots like George W. Bush use terrroist attacks to accomplish other goals...like removing harmless dictators like Saddam Hussein.

Most of our treasure and lives after all have been lost in Iraq and not Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda is not responsible for Bush's stupidity in going into Iraq-- we are.

Had we kept out eye on the ball we would be much closer to success in Af-Pak IMHO.

Civilians typically take the heaviest casualties in military campaigns to "defeat" terrorists.

This is absolutely true. I agree with you 1,000 percent on this. I think that our bombing efforts have been hazardous to our foreing policy in the region and a dismal failure. IN many cases we have been taking one step forward and two back. They need to stop. I agree with that.

But the bombing raids have been necessary as a substitute for troops on the ground.

Now that we are getting more people on the ground...I believe things will start to change.

Technology wise this is a totally different effort than Russia's efforts...Russia was not bringing freedom and democracy to the Afghan people -- Russia was promoting its interests...

What works better are international efforts that share intelligence and coordinate law enforcement operations that thwart attacks and bring the perps to the bar of justice. What works better is international cooperation to mitigate poverty and curtail the weapons trade. What works better are reforms in health care and law enforcement that mitigate the huge demand for illegal drugs.----better and more accessible drug rehab programs, decriminalization, and legalization.

I agree. And this is starting to happen on a parallel with our military efforts. And more of it will happen as we get more troops on the ground TEMPORARILY and we shift our focus away from the military and toward more humanitarian exploits.

In the meantime, there are places like the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan that are so remote and inaccessible that they are havens for terrorists and graveyards for armies trying to take control of the region. By the way the list of failed military incursions into these Af/Pac border regions is quite long. When is Obama going to learn something from history?

We shall see.

There is technology being used now that Bob Woodward could not even elaborate on...that makes it possible for us to be more successful...

We will see just how effective it is. It has totally changed the war in Iraq. We will see if it can translate into success in Af-Pak.

History is changing -- the human race is progressing and this war is unlike any that has been fought previously in the region...

This was is different that the one that was fought last year.

But you do not want to see this.

Now we have the Pakistani army workig with us against the Taliban and to control the border.

That was not happening like it is now.

We have Pakistan and Afghanistan working together on this conflict.

We are sharing intelligence better.

We have more boots on the ground and better coordination is occurring.

Pakistan has a democracy now...and not a military dictatorship.

Afghanistan will have its first contested democratic presidential election soon.

There is progress --- in this first six months -- more than has ever occurred in the past.

So things are different...accept it.

This does not mean it will be easy or a success yet - but things are more promising and this is in a very short time.

rla

Aug 13 2009, 09:22 AM

QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 13 2009, 09:33 AM)

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 12 2009, 12:57 PM)

Americans will tolerate our presence in Afghanistan so long as they believe a threat exists there...and this is the only way it can be contained.

Come up with another way to contain or diffuse the threat to the US and its allies --- and the stability of the region --- and Americans will start to change their mind about supporting it...

Taz, you are a true-believer in a monolithic enemy.

Both Cheney/Shrub and now Obama with his centrist advisers pitch the belief to the American public that Islamic militants are a dire threat that must be "wiped out" by US military intervention on foreign soil----As it is in Iraq, it is in Af/Pak, the "war on terrorism" devolves into stalemated counter-insurgency warfare----the result is the perpetual defense of other countries from the people who live in these countries.

There will always be terrorists whether they are Islamic militants in central Asia, leftist insurgents in Latin America, narcotics traffickers fighting over turf, or white supremacists in Montana. These folks do not, however, represent the same kind of dire threat as armies poised on a border to invade, nuclear missiles and bombers targeting cities, or navies blockading vital trade routes. Terrorists become a greater threat when they succeed at provoking a military response that saps a country's blood and treasure and recruits more terrorists among civilians caught up in the fighting.

Civilians typically take the heaviest casualties in military campaigns to "defeat" terrorists. What works better are international efforts that share intelligence and coordinate law enforcement operations that thwart attacks and bring the perps to the bar of justice. What works better is international cooperation to mitigate poverty and curtail the weapons trade. What works better are reforms in health care and law enforcement that mitigate the huge demand for illegal drugs.----better and more accessible drug rehab programs, decriminalization, and legalization.

In the meantime, there are places like the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan that are so remote and inaccessible that they are havens for terrorists and graveyards for armies trying to take control of the region. By the way the list of failed military incursions into these Af/Pac border regions is quite long. When is Obama going to learn something from history?

Istoodforu, You sound entirely too rational and enlightened and therefore your voice is not welcomed
on this site, in this country, on this planet, because it interfers with bidness...

tazvil04

Aug 13 2009, 09:25 AM

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 13 2009, 09:22 AM)

QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 13 2009, 09:33 AM)

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 12 2009, 12:57 PM)

Americans will tolerate our presence in Afghanistan so long as they believe a threat exists there...and this is the only way it can be contained.

Come up with another way to contain or diffuse the threat to the US and its allies --- and the stability of the region --- and Americans will start to change their mind about supporting it...

Taz, you are a true-believer in a monolithic enemy.

Both Cheney/Shrub and now Obama with his centrist advisers pitch the belief to the American public that Islamic militants are a dire threat that must be "wiped out" by US military intervention on foreign soil----As it is in Iraq, it is in Af/Pak, the "war on terrorism" devolves into stalemated counter-insurgency warfare----the result is the perpetual defense of other countries from the people who live in these countries.

There will always be terrorists whether they are Islamic militants in central Asia, leftist insurgents in Latin America, narcotics traffickers fighting over turf, or white supremacists in Montana. These folks do not, however, represent the same kind of dire threat as armies poised on a border to invade, nuclear missiles and bombers targeting cities, or navies blockading vital trade routes. Terrorists become a greater threat when they succeed at provoking a military response that saps a country's blood and treasure and recruits more terrorists among civilians caught up in the fighting.

Civilians typically take the heaviest casualties in military campaigns to "defeat" terrorists. What works better are international efforts that share intelligence and coordinate law enforcement operations that thwart attacks and bring the perps to the bar of justice. What works better is international cooperation to mitigate poverty and curtail the weapons trade. What works better are reforms in health care and law enforcement that mitigate the huge demand for illegal drugs.----better and more accessible drug rehab programs, decriminalization, and legalization.

In the meantime, there are places like the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan that are so remote and inaccessible that they are havens for terrorists and graveyards for armies trying to take control of the region. By the way the list of failed military incursions into these Af/Pac border regions is quite long. When is Obama going to learn something from history?

Istoodforu, You sound entirely too rational and enlightened and therefore your voice is not welcomed
on this site, in this country, on this planet, because it interfers with bidness...

If you fail to evaluate his words...in detail...yes - he sounds quite rational and reasonable...

Read my post above and see what you think...

rla

Aug 13 2009, 10:27 AM

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 13 2009, 10:21 AM)

QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 13 2009, 08:33 AM)

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 12 2009, 12:57 PM)

Americans will tolerate our presence in Afghanistan so long as they believe a threat exists there...and this is the only way it can be contained.

Come up with another way to contain or diffuse the threat to the US and its allies --- and the stability of the region --- and Americans will start to change their mind about supporting it...

Taz, you are a true-believer in a monolithic enemy.

I think there is more nuance to my beliefs than you allow here...

I do believe that Al Qaeda is an enemy...if you can show me evidence that I am wrong in this belief, I would welcome it. I also strongly believe the American people are in agreement in this regard -- and President Obama is as well. If I am stubborn in believing conspiracy theories...forgive me...but is a theory is a little "out there" I demand just a little bit more evidence.

I also believe that the Taliban is an enemy to us as well. Not so much because of the threat that they pose to we Americans at home, but rather the threat that they pose to the Afghan and Pakistani peoples and their efforts to democratize their societies.

Now, I wish that al Qaeda and the Taliban would renounce their extemist ways and live in peace...

I abhor killing like the next person...but we can agree that this is unlikely to occur ---

Now, if I have not shared a more nuanced approach it is in the interest of brevity...

All members of the Taliban may not necessarily hold their extremist views...there may be some Afghan and Pakistani tribesmen who are patriots of their states and do not like the meddling of the US...but they have joined the Taliban to repel the lawful efforts of the Pakistani and Afghani governments democratically elected by their peoples...

Both Cheney/Shrub and now Obama with his centrist advisers pitch the belief to the American public that Islamic militants are a dire threat that must be "wiped out" by US military intervention on foreign soil----

That is not what I believe or Obama believes or most of the American public believes IMHO....

I think you have created a bit of a straw man here...

Granted, our efforts against al Qaeda are unlikely to dissipate soon.

However, I can tell you if the Taliban agreed to peace...and the Afghan army proved itself fit to secure its borders and its nation...and the tribal leaders in Afghanistan came together...the US military would significantly reduce its military footprint in Iraq.

The Taliban are Islamic militants -- and I do not believe that they need to be "wiped out" as you suggest.

I do not believe that al Qaeda needs to be wiped out either.

Only contained....and until they can be contained we will be there.

As it is in Iraq, it is in Af/Pak, the "war on terrorism" devolves into stalemated counter-insurgency warfare----the result is the perpetual defense of other countries from the people who live in these countries.

How do you define -- people who live in those countries? Nautralized citizens? Al Qaeda is foreign to Pakistan and Afghanistan. These are not citizens of these nations. These are foreign fighters.

The Taliban is a different story.

But the defense is not perpetual.

Obama just got into office...his additional forces were only recently sent to Afgahnistan - and progress has been made in our efforts even in this short time period.

I think he needs to be given a chance...you think we need to leave ASAP...

But Obama is not doing anything he did not campaign on...

I am for giving him SOME time...not a lot--- just some.

I want us to have a chance to integrate and shift our policy away from military emphasis to a social, political and economic effort....

I believe it can bear fruit. Maybe this is foolish. I pray I am not wrong...

But the stakes if YOU are wrong could be much more grave then if I am wrong...

There will always be terrorists whether they are Islamic militants in central Asia, leftist insurgents in Latin America, narcotics traffickers fighting over turf, or white supremacists in Montana.

No kididng.

These folks do not, however, represent the same kind of dire threat as armies poised on a border to invade, nuclear missiles and bombers targeting cities, or navies blockading vital trade routes.

Well, these people with their hijacking of airplanes came dangerously close to representing the same threat as an army...

After all, please do not forget that 9/11 was the worst attack on the US homeland by foreign elements since the war of 1812.

Did we lose more people than on 9/11 in that war?

No. We lost 2,260.
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/casualties_of_war.htm

This was worse than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor where there were 2,345 deaths.
http://worldwar2history.info/Pearl-Harbor/

So this attack by a non-army was the worst foreign attack on US soil -- ever in our history. 2,819 people died on 9/11 as a result of the attacks.

So please do not try to minimize it.

What do you consider a dire threat after all?

These terrorists are also trying to get their hands on a nuclear weapon as well. This is their goal. They did not engage in the attacks on 9/11 and call it quits. They are actively engaged in efforts to kill more Americans and more of our allies. They are not stoppinig.

Terrorists become a greater threat when they succeed at provoking a military response that saps a country's blood and treasure and recruits more terrorists among civilians caught up in the fighting.

Terrorists success when idiots like George W. Bush use terrroist attacks to accomplish other goals...like removing harmless dictators like Saddam Hussein.

Most of our treasure and lives after all have been lost in Iraq and not Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda is not responsible for Bush's stupidity in going into Iraq-- we are.

Had we kept out eye on the ball we would be much closer to success in Af-Pak IMHO.

Civilians typically take the heaviest casualties in military campaigns to "defeat" terrorists.

This is absolutely true. I agree with you 1,000 percent on this. I think that our bombing efforts have been hazardous to our foreing policy in the region and a dismal failure. IN many cases we have been taking one step forward and two back. They need to stop. I agree with that.

But the bombing raids have been necessary as a substitute for troops on the ground.

Now that we are getting more people on the ground...I believe things will start to change.

Technology wise this is a totally different effort than Russia's efforts...Russia was not bringing freedom and democracy to the Afghan people -- Russia was promoting its interests...

What works better are international efforts that share intelligence and coordinate law enforcement operations that thwart attacks and bring the perps to the bar of justice. What works better is international cooperation to mitigate poverty and curtail the weapons trade. What works better are reforms in health care and law enforcement that mitigate the huge demand for illegal drugs.----better and more accessible drug rehab programs, decriminalization, and legalization.

I agree. And this is starting to happen on a parallel with our military efforts. And more of it will happen as we get more troops on the ground TEMPORARILY and we shift our focus away from the military and toward more humanitarian exploits.

In the meantime, there are places like the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan that are so remote and inaccessible that they are havens for terrorists and graveyards for armies trying to take control of the region. By the way the list of failed military incursions into these Af/Pac border regions is quite long. When is Obama going to learn something from history?

We shall see.

There is technology being used now that Bob Woodward could not even elaborate on...that makes it possible for us to be more successful...

We will see just how effective it is. It has totally changed the war in Iraq. We will see if it can translate into success in Af-Pak.

History is changing -- the human race is progressing and this war is unlike any that has been fought previously in the region...

This was is different that the one that was fought last year.

But you do not want to see this.

Now we have the Pakistani army workig with us against the Taliban and to control the border.

That was not happening like it is now.

We have Pakistan and Afghanistan working together on this conflict.

We are sharing intelligence better.

We have more boots on the ground and better coordination is occurring.

Pakistan has a democracy now...and not a military dictatorship.

Afghanistan will have its first contested democratic presidential election soon.

There is progress --- in this first six months -- more than has ever occurred in the past.

So things are different...accept it.

This does not mean it will be easy or a success yet - but things are more promising and this is in a very short time.

And I have a bridge to sell you, Taz...

tazvil04

Aug 13 2009, 10:30 AM

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 13 2009, 10:27 AM)

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 13 2009, 10:21 AM)

QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 13 2009, 08:33 AM)

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 12 2009, 12:57 PM)

Americans will tolerate our presence in Afghanistan so long as they believe a threat exists there...and this is the only way it can be contained.

Come up with another way to contain or diffuse the threat to the US and its allies --- and the stability of the region --- and Americans will start to change their mind about supporting it...

Taz, you are a true-believer in a monolithic enemy.

I think there is more nuance to my beliefs than you allow here...

I do believe that Al Qaeda is an enemy...if you can show me evidence that I am wrong in this belief, I would welcome it. I also strongly believe the American people are in agreement in this regard -- and President Obama is as well. If I am stubborn in believing conspiracy theories...forgive me...but is a theory is a little "out there" I demand just a little bit more evidence.

I also believe that the Taliban is an enemy to us as well. Not so much because of the threat that they pose to we Americans at home, but rather the threat that they pose to the Afghan and Pakistani peoples and their efforts to democratize their societies.

Now, I wish that al Qaeda and the Taliban would renounce their extemist ways and live in peace...

I abhor killing like the next person...but we can agree that this is unlikely to occur ---

Now, if I have not shared a more nuanced approach it is in the interest of brevity...

All members of the Taliban may not necessarily hold their extremist views...there may be some Afghan and Pakistani tribesmen who are patriots of their states and do not like the meddling of the US...but they have joined the Taliban to repel the lawful efforts of the Pakistani and Afghani governments democratically elected by their peoples...

Both Cheney/Shrub and now Obama with his centrist advisers pitch the belief to the American public that Islamic militants are a dire threat that must be "wiped out" by US military intervention on foreign soil----

That is not what I believe or Obama believes or most of the American public believes IMHO....

I think you have created a bit of a straw man here...

Granted, our efforts against al Qaeda are unlikely to dissipate soon.

However, I can tell you if the Taliban agreed to peace...and the Afghan army proved itself fit to secure its borders and its nation...and the tribal leaders in Afghanistan came together...the US military would significantly reduce its military footprint in Iraq.

The Taliban are Islamic militants -- and I do not believe that they need to be "wiped out" as you suggest.

I do not believe that al Qaeda needs to be wiped out either.

Only contained....and until they can be contained we will be there.

As it is in Iraq, it is in Af/Pak, the "war on terrorism" devolves into stalemated counter-insurgency warfare----the result is the perpetual defense of other countries from the people who live in these countries.

How do you define -- people who live in those countries? Nautralized citizens? Al Qaeda is foreign to Pakistan and Afghanistan. These are not citizens of these nations. These are foreign fighters.

The Taliban is a different story.

But the defense is not perpetual.

Obama just got into office...his additional forces were only recently sent to Afgahnistan - and progress has been made in our efforts even in this short time period.

I think he needs to be given a chance...you think we need to leave ASAP...

But Obama is not doing anything he did not campaign on...

I am for giving him SOME time...not a lot--- just some.

I want us to have a chance to integrate and shift our policy away from military emphasis to a social, political and economic effort....

I believe it can bear fruit. Maybe this is foolish. I pray I am not wrong...

But the stakes if YOU are wrong could be much more grave then if I am wrong...

There will always be terrorists whether they are Islamic militants in central Asia, leftist insurgents in Latin America, narcotics traffickers fighting over turf, or white supremacists in Montana.

No kididng.

These folks do not, however, represent the same kind of dire threat as armies poised on a border to invade, nuclear missiles and bombers targeting cities, or navies blockading vital trade routes.

Well, these people with their hijacking of airplanes came dangerously close to representing the same threat as an army...

After all, please do not forget that 9/11 was the worst attack on the US homeland by foreign elements since the war of 1812.

Did we lose more people than on 9/11 in that war?

No. We lost 2,260.
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/casualties_of_war.htm

This was worse than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor where there were 2,345 deaths.
http://worldwar2history.info/Pearl-Harbor/

So this attack by a non-army was the worst foreign attack on US soil -- ever in our history. 2,819 people died on 9/11 as a result of the attacks.

So please do not try to minimize it.

What do you consider a dire threat after all?

These terrorists are also trying to get their hands on a nuclear weapon as well. This is their goal. They did not engage in the attacks on 9/11 and call it quits. They are actively engaged in efforts to kill more Americans and more of our allies. They are not stoppinig.

Terrorists become a greater threat when they succeed at provoking a military response that saps a country's blood and treasure and recruits more terrorists among civilians caught up in the fighting.

Terrorists success when idiots like George W. Bush use terrroist attacks to accomplish other goals...like removing harmless dictators like Saddam Hussein.

Most of our treasure and lives after all have been lost in Iraq and not Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda is not responsible for Bush's stupidity in going into Iraq-- we are.

Had we kept out eye on the ball we would be much closer to success in Af-Pak IMHO.

Civilians typically take the heaviest casualties in military campaigns to "defeat" terrorists.

This is absolutely true. I agree with you 1,000 percent on this. I think that our bombing efforts have been hazardous to our foreing policy in the region and a dismal failure. IN many cases we have been taking one step forward and two back. They need to stop. I agree with that.

But the bombing raids have been necessary as a substitute for troops on the ground.

Now that we are getting more people on the ground...I believe things will start to change.

Technology wise this is a totally different effort than Russia's efforts...Russia was not bringing freedom and democracy to the Afghan people -- Russia was promoting its interests...

What works better are international efforts that share intelligence and coordinate law enforcement operations that thwart attacks and bring the perps to the bar of justice. What works better is international cooperation to mitigate poverty and curtail the weapons trade. What works better are reforms in health care and law enforcement that mitigate the huge demand for illegal drugs.----better and more accessible drug rehab programs, decriminalization, and legalization.

I agree. And this is starting to happen on a parallel with our military efforts. And more of it will happen as we get more troops on the ground TEMPORARILY and we shift our focus away from the military and toward more humanitarian exploits.

In the meantime, there are places like the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan that are so remote and inaccessible that they are havens for terrorists and graveyards for armies trying to take control of the region. By the way the list of failed military incursions into these Af/Pac border regions is quite long. When is Obama going to learn something from history?

We shall see.

There is technology being used now that Bob Woodward could not even elaborate on...that makes it possible for us to be more successful...

We will see just how effective it is. It has totally changed the war in Iraq. We will see if it can translate into success in Af-Pak.

History is changing -- the human race is progressing and this war is unlike any that has been fought previously in the region...

This was is different that the one that was fought last year.

But you do not want to see this.

Now we have the Pakistani army workig with us against the Taliban and to control the border.

That was not happening like it is now.

We have Pakistan and Afghanistan working together on this conflict.

We are sharing intelligence better.

We have more boots on the ground and better coordination is occurring.

Pakistan has a democracy now...and not a military dictatorship.

Afghanistan will have its first contested democratic presidential election soon.

There is progress --- in this first six months -- more than has ever occurred in the past.

So things are different...accept it.

This does not mean it will be easy or a success yet - but things are more promising and this is in a very short time.

And I have a bridge to sell you, Taz...

Deny the progress...then rla...deny the reality...

Its a free country...have at it...

rla

Aug 13 2009, 10:36 AM

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 13 2009, 11:30 AM)

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 13 2009, 10:27 AM)

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 13 2009, 10:21 AM)

QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 13 2009, 08:33 AM)

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 12 2009, 12:57 PM)

Americans will tolerate our presence in Afghanistan so long as they believe a threat exists there...and this is the only way it can be contained.

Come up with another way to contain or diffuse the threat to the US and its allies --- and the stability of the region --- and Americans will start to change their mind about supporting it...

Taz, you are a true-believer in a monolithic enemy.

I think there is more nuance to my beliefs than you allow here...

I do believe that Al Qaeda is an enemy...if you can show me evidence that I am wrong in this belief, I would welcome it. I also strongly believe the American people are in agreement in this regard -- and President Obama is as well. If I am stubborn in believing conspiracy theories...forgive me...but is a theory is a little "out there" I demand just a little bit more evidence.

I also believe that the Taliban is an enemy to us as well. Not so much because of the threat that they pose to we Americans at home, but rather the threat that they pose to the Afghan and Pakistani peoples and their efforts to democratize their societies.

Now, I wish that al Qaeda and the Taliban would renounce their extemist ways and live in peace...

I abhor killing like the next person...but we can agree that this is unlikely to occur ---

Now, if I have not shared a more nuanced approach it is in the interest of brevity...

All members of the Taliban may not necessarily hold their extremist views...there may be some Afghan and Pakistani tribesmen who are patriots of their states and do not like the meddling of the US...but they have joined the Taliban to repel the lawful efforts of the Pakistani and Afghani governments democratically elected by their peoples...

Both Cheney/Shrub and now Obama with his centrist advisers pitch the belief to the American public that Islamic militants are a dire threat that must be "wiped out" by US military intervention on foreign soil----

That is not what I believe or Obama believes or most of the American public believes IMHO....

I think you have created a bit of a straw man here...

Granted, our efforts against al Qaeda are unlikely to dissipate soon.

However, I can tell you if the Taliban agreed to peace...and the Afghan army proved itself fit to secure its borders and its nation...and the tribal leaders in Afghanistan came together...the US military would significantly reduce its military footprint in Iraq.

The Taliban are Islamic militants -- and I do not believe that they need to be "wiped out" as you suggest.

I do not believe that al Qaeda needs to be wiped out either.

Only contained....and until they can be contained we will be there.

As it is in Iraq, it is in Af/Pak, the "war on terrorism" devolves into stalemated counter-insurgency warfare----the result is the perpetual defense of other countries from the people who live in these countries.

How do you define -- people who live in those countries? Nautralized citizens? Al Qaeda is foreign to Pakistan and Afghanistan. These are not citizens of these nations. These are foreign fighters.

The Taliban is a different story.

But the defense is not perpetual.

Obama just got into office...his additional forces were only recently sent to Afgahnistan - and progress has been made in our efforts even in this short time period.

I think he needs to be given a chance...you think we need to leave ASAP...

But Obama is not doing anything he did not campaign on...

I am for giving him SOME time...not a lot--- just some.

I want us to have a chance to integrate and shift our policy away from military emphasis to a social, political and economic effort....

I believe it can bear fruit. Maybe this is foolish. I pray I am not wrong...

But the stakes if YOU are wrong could be much more grave then if I am wrong...

There will always be terrorists whether they are Islamic militants in central Asia, leftist insurgents in Latin America, narcotics traffickers fighting over turf, or white supremacists in Montana.

No kididng.

These folks do not, however, represent the same kind of dire threat as armies poised on a border to invade, nuclear missiles and bombers targeting cities, or navies blockading vital trade routes.

Well, these people with their hijacking of airplanes came dangerously close to representing the same threat as an army...

After all, please do not forget that 9/11 was the worst attack on the US homeland by foreign elements since the war of 1812.

Did we lose more people than on 9/11 in that war?

No. We lost 2,260.
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/casualties_of_war.htm

This was worse than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor where there were 2,345 deaths.
http://worldwar2history.info/Pearl-Harbor/

So this attack by a non-army was the worst foreign attack on US soil -- ever in our history. 2,819 people died on 9/11 as a result of the attacks.

So please do not try to minimize it.

What do you consider a dire threat after all?

These terrorists are also trying to get their hands on a nuclear weapon as well. This is their goal. They did not engage in the attacks on 9/11 and call it quits. They are actively engaged in efforts to kill more Americans and more of our allies. They are not stoppinig.

Terrorists become a greater threat when they succeed at provoking a military response that saps a country's blood and treasure and recruits more terrorists among civilians caught up in the fighting.

Terrorists success when idiots like George W. Bush use terrroist attacks to accomplish other goals...like removing harmless dictators like Saddam Hussein.

Most of our treasure and lives after all have been lost in Iraq and not Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda is not responsible for Bush's stupidity in going into Iraq-- we are.

Had we kept out eye on the ball we would be much closer to success in Af-Pak IMHO.

Civilians typically take the heaviest casualties in military campaigns to "defeat" terrorists.

This is absolutely true. I agree with you 1,000 percent on this. I think that our bombing efforts have been hazardous to our foreing policy in the region and a dismal failure. IN many cases we have been taking one step forward and two back. They need to stop. I agree with that.

But the bombing raids have been necessary as a substitute for troops on the ground.

Now that we are getting more people on the ground...I believe things will start to change.

Technology wise this is a totally different effort than Russia's efforts...Russia was not bringing freedom and democracy to the Afghan people -- Russia was promoting its interests...

What works better are international efforts that share intelligence and coordinate law enforcement operations that thwart attacks and bring the perps to the bar of justice. What works better is international cooperation to mitigate poverty and curtail the weapons trade. What works better are reforms in health care and law enforcement that mitigate the huge demand for illegal drugs.----better and more accessible drug rehab programs, decriminalization, and legalization.

I agree. And this is starting to happen on a parallel with our military efforts. And more of it will happen as we get more troops on the ground TEMPORARILY and we shift our focus away from the military and toward more humanitarian exploits.

In the meantime, there are places like the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan that are so remote and inaccessible that they are havens for terrorists and graveyards for armies trying to take control of the region. By the way the list of failed military incursions into these Af/Pac border regions is quite long. When is Obama going to learn something from history?

We shall see.

There is technology being used now that Bob Woodward could not even elaborate on...that makes it possible for us to be more successful...

We will see just how effective it is. It has totally changed the war in Iraq. We will see if it can translate into success in Af-Pak.

History is changing -- the human race is progressing and this war is unlike any that has been fought previously in the region...

This was is different that the one that was fought last year.

But you do not want to see this.

Now we have the Pakistani army workig with us against the Taliban and to control the border.

That was not happening like it is now.

We have Pakistan and Afghanistan working together on this conflict.

We are sharing intelligence better.

We have more boots on the ground and better coordination is occurring.

Pakistan has a democracy now...and not a military dictatorship.

Afghanistan will have its first contested democratic presidential election soon.

There is progress --- in this first six months -- more than has ever occurred in the past.

So things are different...accept it.

This does not mean it will be easy or a success yet - but things are more promising and this is in a very short time.

And I have a bridge to sell you, Taz...

Deny the progress...then rla...deny the reality...

Its a free country...have at it...

Not really...

I wish for equal freedom for everyone--where it would be one vote per person rather than one vote per dollar...

Istoodforu

Aug 13 2009, 11:45 AM

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 13 2009, 11:27 AM)

And I have a bridge to sell you, Taz...

I don't think Taz is interested in buying a bridge......
He is trying to sell us a bridge to nowhere.

Magmak1

Aug 13 2009, 05:44 PM

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 12 2009, 03:57 PM)

Yaz's earlier responses are in plain normal.

Mag's responses are in bold blue

Seems like the federal government is doing its job monitoring their conduct and holding them accountable, though I would think if their record continues their contract would be voided.

You missed the point entirely. The federal government's contractors are engaged in nefarious activities with the support and assent of the government and those in tight control who oversee their "contracts". It is a part of how the American government does bidness and everyone looks the other way. It is a rats' nest filled with vermin, sewage and worse.

Well, I do not recall Obama saying that he wanted to "conquer" Afghanistan...I believe that stabilize is the terminology he used -- and giving him less than six months for his new approach to work seems to me a little short-sighted, but heck -- who am I -- anyway? He wants to provide support to the Afghan government. There are signs of progress. Pakistan has a democratic regime. Its people are united against the Taliban for the first time and are actively engaging them. The Taliban is fractured. All of this is progress from where things were last year at this time.

Why should I give two hoots about Pakistan? I do not perceive the threat unless you are suggesting that there is a need to take control of the nukes we helped put there. If the threat is the nuclear one, it isn't going to get resolved by doing what is being done in that region. We have and continue to alienate a people whose culture the West has not understood for centuries.

I have spoke strongly regarding this [PTSD] all during the Bush Administration's tenure. Now, since the Democrats have taken control of Congress in 2006, there is finally attention focused on this issue. It is debilitating and the sooner we can end the conflict the better. But the worst scenario would be to leave Afghanistan now and let it fall apart, al Qaeda and the Taliban entrench themselves once again there, and the people lose hope and any desire to ever give the experiment of democracy another chance. Frankly, while this is a sad result of war, I do not see what its relevance is to a thread about why we are in Afghanistan. I see the vagaries of war just about every week in my job. I know it is not trifling at all. But we are there. This is US policy. It has been determined that this is a national security issue and since no one can come up with an alternative method of containing al Qaeda and preventiing a resurgence of the Taliban...this is where we will stay until the Pakistani forces and the Afghan forces are able to nuetralize the Taliban on their own.

I raised the PTSD issue because, while I recognize that it has little to do with policy or the region, we Americans and its leaders have got to stop seeing the thing in its abstract and start seeing it in terms of its human and social cost to America. It's not about grand chessboards and pipelines; it's about the fact that the young kid just down the street went off his rocker and generates intense fear in his family, children, co-workers, etc. That threat is already right here in America; the Taliban threat is supposed, alleged, and distant. You say 'It has been determined that this is a national security issue'. WHo determined that? Where is the finding, and on the basis of what evidence? If some suitcase nuke goes off in downtown Trenton, NJ, it'll be a horror story, but there are proper incentives and techniques in place to insure that this is not terribly likely to happen in the near-future. Meanwhile, Joe Soldier's suitcase psycho-IED goes off in someone's household ten times a day, 365 days a year. PTSD is real and here now; the Taliban threat is still well off in the distance and the future.

He forecast his intentions with regard to Afghanistan in the campaign --- this has been the policy of the Dems since 2005 to call for a transfer of priority from Iraq to Afghanistan. Stop acting like this is a new policy approach that is being implemented...It is no game. It is stark reality and no one is treating it as such.

By "this nation and its people" who do you mean -- Americans or Afghanis?

I am here in America; I'm not too particularly concerned with the Afghanis. If, as you say, they have a democracy, then they can figure it out. Same with Iraq. But we know better, as America purposefully foments tension, violence and chaos.

I can pose the same type of question to you --- as I have to IStoodForU --- Is there any justification for any war which you would support?

No.

I did not think so -- therefore the answer you are asking for is impossible to provide, but then I think you knew that.

The fact that you want to try and attack Obama for his policy in Afghanistan when he has been transparent about this policy all along is frankly incredible.

I don't see it as Obama's policy except to the extent that he inherited it and continues it. Yes, yes, don't change horses in the middle of the stream, and all that BS. The war is bankrupting America financially and morally.

Casus belli includes direct attack on America and Americans inside the CONUS, not our commercial, energy, corporate or external interests, nor our people outside the US except in certain circumstances. (Bombing an Embassy is not cause for war, unless it is serially or widespread in many countries.) As you can probably guess, I don't buy the theory that 9/11 was an external attack by anyone; it is considered by many to have been an inside job by certain internal and certain external parties in order to justify war(s). But we're not gonna debate that here...)

It is obvious [Dov Zakheim's ]competence is at issue. He should demand more from KBR -- more competence on their behalf. I agree with you here. But the fact of a contractor's incompetence or malfeasance does not forsake our entire mission in the region.

No, his allegiance, honesty, integrity is at issue. He was probably perfectly competent in overseeing the disappearance of trillions, or in rewarding key people and corporations who will do the bidding and bidness of the dirty work.

Your last sentence ["Just how long is everyone can stay in denial and pretend that what's been going on and continues to go on is having and will continue to have profoundly-negative implications for Main Street America?"] is unclear.

Americans will tolerate our presence in Afghanistan so long as they believe a threat exists there...and this is the only way it can be contained.

Come up with another way to contain or diffuse the threat to the US and its allies --- and the stability of the region --- and Americans will start to change their mind about supporting it...

But to date you have yet to even make the case to us on this thread...

I do not believe there is a threat to American from that region that warrants what is happening. The entire thing rests on faulty logic, lies, and propaganda.

The simplest way to diffuse the threat and improve the stability of the region is to get US military and interests out of the region.

Magmak1

Aug 13 2009, 11:59 PM

"Routinely, the dominant political and media calculus renders the dead as digits and widgets, moved around on spreadsheets and news pages. The victims of war are hardly seen as people by the numbed sophisticates who can measure just about anything but the value of a human life."

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23259.htm

Arneoker

Aug 14 2009, 06:39 PM

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 10 2009, 11:32 AM)

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 10 2009, 10:17 AM)

QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Aug 10 2009, 09:05 AM)

One word explanation:

OIL

NO -- I htink it is more than that...

I think al Qaeda does have something to do with it...and the fact that if we pulled out as some suggest that the Taliban would take over again...and al Qaeda would be strengthened...which would be a threat to us and our allies...

I agree that IT is more than Oil...IT is Empire, spelled multinational corportations and a few private sludge funds
such as the Garyle Group...

Were Julius Caesar's primary motives multinational corporations and the Carlyle group, or anything like that?

Yes Rla, there are imperialists, and some important ones live right in this town. But to understand them you have to see how they resemble the ones of ages past...

Arneoker

Aug 14 2009, 06:45 PM

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 10 2009, 11:26 AM)

No matter how one stirs this can of worms called waging war to solve problems we still have a can of worms...

I don't think Jim Jones or Robert Gates or Jim Baker or Henery Kissinger or Brent Scocroft are any more honorable
men than Runsfield. Unless Obama can disintangle himself from the point of view of these characters, he will eventually be seen as equally dis-honorable...

How is Jim Jones dishonorable? You need to show more than he disagrees with your point of view. To attack arguments by claiming that their author is dishonorable is in itself dishonorable, at least 99.9% of the time.

Why not just try to argue that Jones is wrong?

Arneoker

Aug 14 2009, 06:46 PM

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 10 2009, 11:33 AM)

QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Aug 10 2009, 09:05 AM)

We cannot afford a failed state in Afghanistan. We should find new ways to accomplish this rather than what has been done under Bush. All that Bush has done (and who he had appointed... Generals included) needs to be gone over with a fine tooth comb. The recent changes in the command structure in the field suggest he is doing that.

Obama did not start the war in Afghanistan (if indeed that is what it is now) but he must finish it. Likewise in Iraq though of an almost completely different character and circumstance; Iraq and Afghanistan must become functioning states capable of maintaining order and being responsible for who within their borders acts from their soil on us and our allies.

I hate war and violence, especially when it is either unnecessary or illegitimate and or based on lies and corruption. I will not say what should be done with those responsible, but we can not wave a magic wand and undo what has been done in our name. To believe so is to engage in far more "magical thinking" than some have suspected me of.

Just my opinion.

Right on the money....IMHO

Even my avatar could not solve things there by waving his magic wand!

Arneoker

Aug 14 2009, 06:49 PM

QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 10 2009, 11:41 AM)

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 10 2009, 09:56 AM)

IStoodForU:

What?

Afghanistan is different from Iraq...or hadn't you heard?

Obama is doing exactly what he promised to do during the campaign.

Now, all of a sudden, have you like rla had an epiphany and realized suddently exactly what Obama and the Democratic party have been campaigning on since 2004 -- that we need to transition to fighting the real war on terror in Afghanistan?

In your reply to my post you repeat almost word for word the opening statement in my post.

QUOTE

Barack Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do early in his campaign:

Did you read my post before replying to it? If you had, you might of realized that I don't buy the propaganda that the war in Iraq is that much different than Af/Pak. When I examine the frames of Obama's own rhetoric, his criticism of the Iraq war is just as withering when it's applied to Obama's escalation of Af/Pak.

Check the archives! Rla, Beamer, and I have argued anti-war positions on this board for years.

I even argued anti-war positions on the Kerry board AND I marched in protest of the Gulf war long before this board was established. There have been times when I hoped for a defeat of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, but, for me, that's water under the bridge. US and NATO forces can certainly kill a lot of people, but consequence will be the perpetuation of the conflict.

The time for ships and planes to bring troops home is long overdue.

You may disagree in principal with peace activism and I'm more than willing to debate that issue with you,

but back off now on this charge that we take an anti-war position only when it is politically expedient.

It's verifiably false and it's an asinine ad hominum argument.

I must say that I agree with you here. Personally I have had very sharp disagreements with your views on these matters, but they have been quite consistent, and coherent, very coherent, as a matter of fact.

Arneoker

Aug 14 2009, 06:52 PM

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 10 2009, 06:06 PM)

The US Af-Pac policy appears to be to wipe out the Pashtun Tribe so we can maintain pupet governments in Afganstan and Pakistan...personally I think that's a $hity way to run a railroad...

What if the claim in your first clause (which I believe that you have never supported in any way, shape or fashion) is simply totally untrue? Doesn't that approach have its own defects?

Arneoker

Aug 14 2009, 06:56 PM

QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 11 2009, 11:05 AM)

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 10 2009, 03:29 PM)

What I said was that you would not be satisfied with any Obama policy UNLESS it involved immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan.

And guess what -- it appears I was correct...

You might wait for my answer to that question before you score it correct or incorrect.

You might be correct if "immediate withdrawal" is commensurate with "force protection." My guess is that it would take six month to a year to get forces out safely. I would also hope that NATO and US commanders take care to remove dangerous weapons and ordinance like landmines, white phosphorous, clusterbombs, napalm, etc.

I might also be satisfied with a longer timetable based upon a specific time limited mission to protect civilian reconstruction projects from attacks by insurgents.

But I'm not at all satisfied with "defeating Al Qaeda and Taliban." I don't see how there could be meaningful benchmarks to measure progress toward that goal. That goal lies on a very slippery slope toward genocide. It seems like "defeating the IRA" by wiping out Irish Catholics or intimidating them into abject submission by carpet bombing their neighborhoods. Happily, the British weren't that stupid.

Well the IRA actually turned out to be reasonably trusworthy negotiators (they are even serving in the same government run by the folks we used to think were the nutjobs from the other side). But not all insurgents are, even if we should always look very hard for such. And I don't think that genocide is necessary to defeat insurgents, although it is unfortunately a tactic way too interesting for a lot of people.

Arneoker

Aug 14 2009, 07:00 PM

QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 13 2009, 10:33 AM)

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 12 2009, 12:57 PM)

Americans will tolerate our presence in Afghanistan so long as they believe a threat exists there...and this is the only way it can be contained.

Come up with another way to contain or diffuse the threat to the US and its allies --- and the stability of the region --- and Americans will start to change their mind about supporting it...

Taz, you are a true-believer in a monolithic enemy.

I know people with personal experience with non-monolithic enemies in their country. Believe me, it was no picnic, one was ready to have his family leave his country forever but for the pleadings of his mother.

Arneoker

Aug 14 2009, 07:05 PM

QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 13 2009, 10:33 AM)

There will always be terrorists whether they are Islamic militants in central Asia, leftist insurgents in Latin America, narcotics traffickers fighting over turf, or white supremacists in Montana. These folks do not, however, represent the same kind of dire threat as armies poised on a border to invade, nuclear missiles and bombers targeting cities, or navies blockading vital trade routes. Terrorists become a greater threat when they succeed at provoking a military response that saps a country's blood and treasure and recruits more terrorists among civilians caught up in the fighting.

Civilians typically take the heaviest casualties in military campaigns to "defeat" terrorists. What works better are international efforts that share intelligence and coordinate law enforcement operations that thwart attacks and bring the perps to the bar of justice. What works better is international cooperation to mitigate poverty and curtail the weapons trade. What works better are reforms in health care and law enforcement that mitigate the huge demand for illegal drugs.----better and more accessible drug rehab programs, decriminalization, and legalization.

Mostly right, but is there a one size fits all solution? Do you think that we should simply let the Afghan cops and Pakistani cops arrest the terrorists in their countries?

By all means all these social problems need to be seriously tackled, and even heavy force will only achieve so much benefit (at best) in the short term. But don't some problems merit a multipronged response, precisely the ones that are so intractable as what we are discussing?

rla

Aug 14 2009, 07:36 PM

QUOTE(Beamer @ Aug 9 2009, 09:23 PM)

Jim Jones was on Face the Nation this morning and explained what was going on with Afghanistan - sort of. But he didn't answer this father's questions. I think Jones and Gates are both honorable men. And, I believe the troops that are being sent now had been committed months ago. Jones says he wants to wait a year and see if things improve.

Meanwhile, men like this man's sons are continuing to die.

QUOTE

Sunday Forum: Mr. President, you must explain your wars
We have sons fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I'm not sure why, says ERIC RIESEN
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Dean Rohrer

On Monday, July 20, our youngest left for Afghanistan. Tristan is 21 years old, and he joins his brother Paul, who is finishing a tour of duty in Iraq. So now we have two sons serving in two different countries during two wars.

These wars have become deeply personal. When we read about the increasing number of casualties, when we consider the families of every young serviceman or servicewoman killed or wounded, our hearts break for them -- and for ourselves.

Each story causes us to ask the most haunting of questions: "What if?"

Tucked away in a photo album, we have a picture taken years ago which shows two little boys standing at attention with coonskin caps on their heads and muskets at their side. Christmas gifts purchased at Fort Ligonier. In those days, they couldn't get enough of cowboys and Indians and G.I. Joes. They were two little boys who dreamt of becoming heroes and saving the world from the bad guys.

Now, years later, we have pictures of two handsome young men in uniform who, in their own way, still want to save the world from the bad guys. Undoubtedly, maturity has brought some ambiguity to their dreams. Exactly who the bad guys are, and how we can save the world from them, is much more difficult to discern. What I do know is that our two boys (they are always "our boys" to me), want to serve nobly in a virtuous cause. Their hearts are true.

But what about the hearts of those who send young men like Paul and Tristan into harm's way?

I came of age right after Vietnam. My wife's uncle, Michael Stoflet, was killed there. One thing we learned from Vietnam is the importance, even the necessity, of questioning the wisdom, judgment and integrity of those who decide to make war. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, we have learned that there is no inherent contradiction between being a successful politician and an ass.

As hard as it is to fathom, we all know that our national leaders have in the past, and are capable today, of sending young men and women to die in wars that are unnecessary, unwinnable and unjust -- but politically expedient. Often, these decisions are made by those who have never fought in a war (Dick Cheney had five college draft deferments), and who make certain never to have one of their own children do the fighting.

Before a political leader decides to vote in order to send someone to war, he or she should ask themselves if they would be willing to send, and perhaps sacrifice, one of their own sons or daughters in the conflict. If the answer is questionable, then so is the war.

I was not a supporter of Barack Obama, but I did agree with, and admire, his opposition to the war in Iraq. After his election I breathed a sigh of relief. It relieved me to think that we had a person in the White House who was going to bring our troops home as soon as possible. As a father of two sons in the military, I was naturally relieved. This was change I could believe in.

Now I shake my head in disbelief. The man who promised to bring home the troops in a timely fashion is sending 24,000 more troops into a questionable war in Afghanistan, which many experts believe is militarily unwinnable. Even the Post-Gazette editorial board, an ardent Obama supporter during the campaign, questions the wisdom of sending more troops.

Last month was the deadliest for Americans fighting in Afghanistan. Behind each of those deaths is a family whose hearts are breaking. These families are proud of their sons' and daughters' service for our country, but they, and all Americans, want to know that these sacrifices were absolutely necessary in the struggle for a just cause.

The Obama administration has put on a full-court press for passage of a bill to overhaul America's health-care system. President Obama spent time on television explaining what must happen and why.

The same full-court press needs to occur in order to explain why we must still be in Afghanistan. Anything less than this is a disservice to our nation and to those who serve this nation in our military -- and their families.

Our sons, like hundreds of thousands of others, are serving their country with honor and integrity. We support our troops. They want to stop the bad guys from doing greater harm in this world. And there really are some nasty people hellbent on furthering their purposes. They must be stopped, but exactly how fighting a war in Afghanistan will keep us safe from terrorists in Pittsburgh or Peoria or Pasadena needs to be clearly explained.

Is this war absolutely necessary for our freedom and well-being as a nation? Will this war keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists? Will the world be a safer place by the sacrifice of so many?

Mr. President, this is your war now. You must explain.

Eric Riesen is the pastor of Zion Lutheran Church in Brentwood and lives in Pleasant Hills (emriesen@yahoo.com). He and his wife, Terry, are also the proud parents of a daughter, Erica, who fights a different kind of battle teaching first grade in Columbus, Ohio.
First published on August 9, 2009 at 12:00 am

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09221/989356-109.stm

Arne, I was disagreeing with Beamer's introductory post starting the thread. She gave her opinion and I countered it with a different opinion. I'm sure some people think Rumsfield is an honorable man.

rla

Aug 14 2009, 07:42 PM

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 14 2009, 08:05 PM)

QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 13 2009, 10:33 AM)

There will always be terrorists whether they are Islamic militants in central Asia, leftist insurgents in Latin America, narcotics traffickers fighting over turf, or white supremacists in Montana. These folks do not, however, represent the same kind of dire threat as armies poised on a border to invade, nuclear missiles and bombers targeting cities, or navies blockading vital trade routes. Terrorists become a greater threat when they succeed at provoking a military response that saps a country's blood and treasure and recruits more terrorists among civilians caught up in the fighting.

Civilians typically take the heaviest casualties in military campaigns to "defeat" terrorists. What works better are international efforts that share intelligence and coordinate law enforcement operations that thwart attacks and bring the perps to the bar of justice. What works better is international cooperation to mitigate poverty and curtail the weapons trade. What works better are reforms in health care and law enforcement that mitigate the huge demand for illegal drugs.----better and more accessible drug rehab programs, decriminalization, and legalization.

Mostly right, but is there a one size fits all solution? Do you think that we should simply let the Afghan cops and Pakistani cops arrest the terrorists in their countries?

By all means all these social problems need to be seriously tackled, and even heavy force will only achieve so much benefit (at best) in the short term. But don't some problems merit a multipronged response, precisely the ones that are so intractable as what we are discussing?

It is at least as often the case that we should let the, "Terrorists" arrest the cops.

Arneoker

Aug 15 2009, 08:42 AM

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 14 2009, 09:36 PM)

QUOTE(Beamer @ Aug 9 2009, 09:23 PM)

Jim Jones was on Face the Nation this morning and explained what was going on with Afghanistan - sort of. But he didn't answer this father's questions. I think Jones and Gates are both honorable men. And, I believe the troops that are being sent now had been committed months ago. Jones says he wants to wait a year and see if things improve.

Meanwhile, men like this man's sons are continuing to die.

QUOTE

Sunday Forum: Mr. President, you must explain your wars
We have sons fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I'm not sure why, says ERIC RIESEN
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Dean Rohrer

On Monday, July 20, our youngest left for Afghanistan. Tristan is 21 years old, and he joins his brother Paul, who is finishing a tour of duty in Iraq. So now we have two sons serving in two different countries during two wars.

These wars have become deeply personal. When we read about the increasing number of casualties, when we consider the families of every young serviceman or servicewoman killed or wounded, our hearts break for them -- and for ourselves.

Each story causes us to ask the most haunting of questions: "What if?"

Tucked away in a photo album, we have a picture taken years ago which shows two little boys standing at attention with coonskin caps on their heads and muskets at their side. Christmas gifts purchased at Fort Ligonier. In those days, they couldn't get enough of cowboys and Indians and G.I. Joes. They were two little boys who dreamt of becoming heroes and saving the world from the bad guys.

Now, years later, we have pictures of two handsome young men in uniform who, in their own way, still want to save the world from the bad guys. Undoubtedly, maturity has brought some ambiguity to their dreams. Exactly who the bad guys are, and how we can save the world from them, is much more difficult to discern. What I do know is that our two boys (they are always "our boys" to me), want to serve nobly in a virtuous cause. Their hearts are true.

But what about the hearts of those who send young men like Paul and Tristan into harm's way?

I came of age right after Vietnam. My wife's uncle, Michael Stoflet, was killed there. One thing we learned from Vietnam is the importance, even the necessity, of questioning the wisdom, judgment and integrity of those who decide to make war. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, we have learned that there is no inherent contradiction between being a successful politician and an ass.

As hard as it is to fathom, we all know that our national leaders have in the past, and are capable today, of sending young men and women to die in wars that are unnecessary, unwinnable and unjust -- but politically expedient. Often, these decisions are made by those who have never fought in a war (Dick Cheney had five college draft deferments), and who make certain never to have one of their own children do the fighting.

Before a political leader decides to vote in order to send someone to war, he or she should ask themselves if they would be willing to send, and perhaps sacrifice, one of their own sons or daughters in the conflict. If the answer is questionable, then so is the war.

I was not a supporter of Barack Obama, but I did agree with, and admire, his opposition to the war in Iraq. After his election I breathed a sigh of relief. It relieved me to think that we had a person in the White House who was going to bring our troops home as soon as possible. As a father of two sons in the military, I was naturally relieved. This was change I could believe in.

Now I shake my head in disbelief. The man who promised to bring home the troops in a timely fashion is sending 24,000 more troops into a questionable war in Afghanistan, which many experts believe is militarily unwinnable. Even the Post-Gazette editorial board, an ardent Obama supporter during the campaign, questions the wisdom of sending more troops.

Last month was the deadliest for Americans fighting in Afghanistan. Behind each of those deaths is a family whose hearts are breaking. These families are proud of their sons' and daughters' service for our country, but they, and all Americans, want to know that these sacrifices were absolutely necessary in the struggle for a just cause.

The Obama administration has put on a full-court press for passage of a bill to overhaul America's health-care system. President Obama spent time on television explaining what must happen and why.

The same full-court press needs to occur in order to explain why we must still be in Afghanistan. Anything less than this is a disservice to our nation and to those who serve this nation in our military -- and their families.

Our sons, like hundreds of thousands of others, are serving their country with honor and integrity. We support our troops. They want to stop the bad guys from doing greater harm in this world. And there really are some nasty people hellbent on furthering their purposes. They must be stopped, but exactly how fighting a war in Afghanistan will keep us safe from terrorists in Pittsburgh or Peoria or Pasadena needs to be clearly explained.

Is this war absolutely necessary for our freedom and well-being as a nation? Will this war keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists? Will the world be a safer place by the sacrifice of so many?

Mr. President, this is your war now. You must explain.

Eric Riesen is the pastor of Zion Lutheran Church in Brentwood and lives in Pleasant Hills (emriesen@yahoo.com). He and his wife, Terry, are also the proud parents of a daughter, Erica, who fights a different kind of battle teaching first grade in Columbus, Ohio.
First published on August 9, 2009 at 12:00 am

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09221/989356-109.stm

Arne, I was disagreeing with Beamer's introductory post starting the thread. She gave her opinion and I countered it with a different opinion. I'm sure some people think Rumsfield is an honorable man.

You replied to the wrong post.

Arneoker

Aug 15 2009, 08:44 AM

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 14 2009, 09:42 PM)

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 14 2009, 08:05 PM)

QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 13 2009, 10:33 AM)

There will always be terrorists whether they are Islamic militants in central Asia, leftist insurgents in Latin America, narcotics traffickers fighting over turf, or white supremacists in Montana. These folks do not, however, represent the same kind of dire threat as armies poised on a border to invade, nuclear missiles and bombers targeting cities, or navies blockading vital trade routes. Terrorists become a greater threat when they succeed at provoking a military response that saps a country's blood and treasure and recruits more terrorists among civilians caught up in the fighting.

Civilians typically take the heaviest casualties in military campaigns to "defeat" terrorists. What works better are international efforts that share intelligence and coordinate law enforcement operations that thwart attacks and bring the perps to the bar of justice. What works better is international cooperation to mitigate poverty and curtail the weapons trade. What works better are reforms in health care and law enforcement that mitigate the huge demand for illegal drugs.----better and more accessible drug rehab programs, decriminalization, and legalization.

Mostly right, but is there a one size fits all solution? Do you think that we should simply let the Afghan cops and Pakistani cops arrest the terrorists in their countries?

By all means all these social problems need to be seriously tackled, and even heavy force will only achieve so much benefit (at best) in the short term. But don't some problems merit a multipronged response, precisely the ones that are so intractable as what we are discussing?

It is at least as often the case that we should let the, "Terrorists" arrest the cops.

So you don't respect the right of other countries even to set up their own police forces? Common people being subject to ruthless criminals unmolested doesn't bother you?

rla

Aug 15 2009, 08:49 AM

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 14 2009, 07:45 PM)

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 10 2009, 11:26 AM)

No matter how one stirs this can of worms called waging war to solve problems we still have a can of worms...

I don't think Jim Jones or Robert Gates or Jim Baker or Henery Kissinger or Brent Scocroft are any more honorable
men than Runsfield. Unless Obama can disintangle himself from the point of view of these characters, he will eventually be seen as equally dis-honorable...

How is Jim Jones dishonorable? You need to show more than he disagrees with your point of view. To attack arguments by claiming that their author is dishonorable is in itself dishonorable, at least 99.9% of the time.

Why not just try to argue that Jones is wrong?

This was your post that I was responding to, last...

rla

Aug 15 2009, 08:52 AM

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 15 2009, 09:44 AM)

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 14 2009, 09:42 PM)

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 14 2009, 08:05 PM)

QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 13 2009, 10:33 AM)

There will always be terrorists whether they are Islamic militants in central Asia, leftist insurgents in Latin America, narcotics traffickers fighting over turf, or white supremacists in Montana. These folks do not, however, represent the same kind of dire threat as armies poised on a border to invade, nuclear missiles and bombers targeting cities, or navies blockading vital trade routes. Terrorists become a greater threat when they succeed at provoking a military response that saps a country's blood and treasure and recruits more terrorists among civilians caught up in the fighting.

Civilians typically take the heaviest casualties in military campaigns to "defeat" terrorists. What works better are international efforts that share intelligence and coordinate law enforcement operations that thwart attacks and bring the perps to the bar of justice. What works better is international cooperation to mitigate poverty and curtail the weapons trade. What works better are reforms in health care and law enforcement that mitigate the huge demand for illegal drugs.----better and more accessible drug rehab programs, decriminalization, and legalization.

Mostly right, but is there a one size fits all solution? Do you think that we should simply let the Afghan cops and Pakistani cops arrest the terrorists in their countries?

By all means all these social problems need to be seriously tackled, and even heavy force will only achieve so much benefit (at best) in the short term. But don't some problems merit a multipronged response, precisely the ones that are so intractable as what we are discussing?

It is at least as often the case that we should let the, "Terrorists" arrest the cops.

So you don't respect the right of other countries even to set up their own police forces? Common people being subject to ruthless criminals unmolested doesn't bother you?

I don't like it when the US interfers with these situations in other countries--inorder to maintain our empire interest...

Arneoker

Aug 15 2009, 09:15 AM

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 15 2009, 10:52 AM)

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 15 2009, 09:44 AM)

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 14 2009, 09:42 PM)

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 14 2009, 08:05 PM)

QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 13 2009, 10:33 AM)

There will always be terrorists whether they are Islamic militants in central Asia, leftist insurgents in Latin America, narcotics traffickers fighting over turf, or white supremacists in Montana. These folks do not, however, represent the same kind of dire threat as armies poised on a border to invade, nuclear missiles and bombers targeting cities, or navies blockading vital trade routes. Terrorists become a greater threat when they succeed at provoking a military response that saps a country's blood and treasure and recruits more terrorists among civilians caught up in the fighting.

Civilians typically take the heaviest casualties in military campaigns to "defeat" terrorists. What works better are international efforts that share intelligence and coordinate law enforcement operations that thwart attacks and bring the perps to the bar of justice. What works better is international cooperation to mitigate poverty and curtail the weapons trade. What works better are reforms in health care and law enforcement that mitigate the huge demand for illegal drugs.----better and more accessible drug rehab programs, decriminalization, and legalization.

Mostly right, but is there a one size fits all solution? Do you think that we should simply let the Afghan cops and Pakistani cops arrest the terrorists in their countries?

By all means all these social problems need to be seriously tackled, and even heavy force will only achieve so much benefit (at best) in the short term. But don't some problems merit a multipronged response, precisely the ones that are so intractable as what we are discussing?

It is at least as often the case that we should let the, "Terrorists" arrest the cops.

So you don't respect the right of other countries even to set up their own police forces? Common people being subject to ruthless criminals unmolested doesn't bother you?

I don't like it when the US interfers with these situations in other countries--inorder to maintain our empire interest...

How about if we do that to assist in maintaining peace, safety and stability in those countries? Some think, I know that I do, that the more peace, safety and stability a country has it is good not just for that country but for the world in general.

rla

Aug 15 2009, 02:39 PM

There will always be terrorists whether they are Islamic militants in central Asia, leftist insurgents in Latin America, narcotics traffickers fighting over turf, or white supremacists in Montana. These folks do not, however, represent the same kind of dire threat as armies poised on a border to invade, nuclear missiles and bombers targeting cities, or navies blockading vital trade routes. Terrorists become a greater threat when they succeed at provoking a military response that saps a country's blood and treasure and recruits more terrorists among civilians caught up in the fighting.

Civilians typically take the heaviest casualties in military campaigns to "defeat" terrorists. What works better are international efforts that share intelligence and coordinate law enforcement operations that thwart attacks and bring the perps to the bar of justice. What works better is international cooperation to mitigate poverty and curtail the weapons trade. What works better are reforms in health care and law enforcement that mitigate the huge demand for illegal drugs.----better and more accessible drug rehab programs, decriminalization, and legalization.[/quote]
Mostly right, but is there a one size fits all solution? Do you think that we should simply let the Afghan cops and Pakistani cops arrest the terrorists in their countries?

By all means all these social problems need to be seriously tackled, and even heavy force will only achieve so much benefit (at best) in the short term. But don't some problems merit a multipronged response, precisely the ones that are so intractable as what we are discussing?
[/quote]

It is at least as often the case that we should let the, "Terrorists" arrest the cops.
[/quote]
So you don't respect the right of other countries even to set up their own police forces? Common people being subject to ruthless criminals unmolested doesn't bother you?
[/quote]

I don't like it when the US interfers with these situations in other countries--inorder to maintain our empire interest...
[/quote]
How about if we do that to assist in maintaining peace, safety and stability in those countries? Some think, I know that I do, that the more peace, safety and stability a country has it is good not just for that country but for the world in general.
[/quote]

Not when stability is maintained with oppression. We have too often erred in that direction...

Arneoker

Aug 15 2009, 02:42 PM

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 15 2009, 04:39 PM)

Not when stability is maintained with oppression. We have too often erred in that direction...

I agreed that we have too often erred in that direction. I don't think that justifies erring in other ways. For example I think our doing nothing in Rwanda was also an error. Not that we could have simply stopped all of what happened there, but I think we could have stopped a lot of it.

rla

Aug 15 2009, 03:14 PM

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 15 2009, 03:42 PM)

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 15 2009, 04:39 PM)

Not when stability is maintained with oppression. We have too often erred in that direction...

I agreed that we have too often erred in that direction. I don't think that justifies erring in other ways. For example I think our doing nothing in Rwanda was also an error. Not that we could have simply stopped all of what happened there, but I think we could have stopped a lot of it.

We could have (and I think should have) done a lot more working through other groups, without a unilateral intervention...

The fact is that it has been a part of US foreign policy to make happen and/or let happen a great deal of inter group conflict as a way of keeping our competors out and our investment partners in as a way
of controling access to the resources at hand--in the middle east, Asia, Africa, Latin America and the USSR break away countries...This is my basic objection to the Kissinger approach to foreign policy...

Arneoker

Aug 15 2009, 06:24 PM

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 15 2009, 05:14 PM)

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 15 2009, 03:42 PM)

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 15 2009, 04:39 PM)

Not when stability is maintained with oppression. We have too often erred in that direction...

I agreed that we have too often erred in that direction. I don't think that justifies erring in other ways. For example I think our doing nothing in Rwanda was also an error. Not that we could have simply stopped all of what happened there, but I think we could have stopped a lot of it.

We could have (and I think should have) done a lot more working through other groups, without a unilateral intervention...

The fact is that it has been a part of US foreign policy to make happen and/or let happen a great deal of inter group conflict as a way of keeping our competors out and our investment partners in as a way
of controling access to the resources at hand--in the middle east, Asia, Africa, Latin America and the USSR break away countries...This is my basic objection to the Kissinger approach to foreign policy...

I think that those pursuing unilateralism have done so because of an obsessive desire for as much unshared power as possible. I don't think that they are so nutso that they would stir up conflict in some weird hope that it would facilitate that goal. I really think that it primarily has to be desire for power for its own sake. And I think that the resources thing is more complicated than you seem to think, if anything the Chinese seem to pursuing a policy closer to what you are talking about than we are. If they learn anything over the next few years they will realize that such a goal is basically hopeless, that the best thing to do is to promote open markets for those resources, so that they will be able to have the same shot at them as any other country with money. (And they will have ever more money over the next few years.)

As far as Kissinger goes, I am not a fan of his, but I think you are being quite unfair to him in claiming that he supports this approach. I am very skeptical that you have any kind of proof at all that he supports it.

rla

Aug 15 2009, 07:55 PM

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 15 2009, 07:24 PM)

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 15 2009, 05:14 PM)

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 15 2009, 03:42 PM)

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 15 2009, 04:39 PM)

Not when stability is maintained with oppression. We have too often erred in that direction...

I agreed that we have too often erred in that direction. I don't think that justifies erring in other ways. For example I think our doing nothing in Rwanda was also an error. Not that we could have simply stopped all of what happened there, but I think we could have stopped a lot of it.

We could have (and I think should have) done a lot more working through other groups, without a unilateral intervention...

The fact is that it has been a part of US foreign policy to make happen and/or let happen a great deal of inter group conflict as a way of keeping our competors out and our investment partners in as a way
of controling access to the resources at hand--in the middle east, Asia, Africa, Latin America and the USSR break away countries...This is my basic objection to the Kissinger approach to foreign policy...

I think that those pursuing unilateralism have done so because of an obsessive desire for as much unshared power as possible. I don't think that they are so nutso that they would stir up conflict in some weird hope that it would facilitate that goal. I really think that it primarily has to be desire for power for its own sake. And I think that the resources thing is more complicated than you seem to think, if anything the Chinese seem to pursuing a policy closer to what you are talking about than we are. If they learn anything over the next few years they will realize that such a goal is basically hopeless, that the best thing to do is to promote open markets for those resources, so that they will be able to have the same shot at them as any other country with money. (And they will have ever more money over the next few years.)

As far as Kissinger goes, I am not a fan of his, but I think you are being quite unfair to him in claiming that he supports this approach. I am very skeptical that you have any kind of proof at all that he supports it.

People like Kissinger sometimes do the right things for the wrong reasons and sometimes do the wrong things for the wrong reasons...

Istoodforu

Aug 16 2009, 08:06 AM

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 14 2009, 08:05 PM)

QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 13 2009, 10:33 AM)

There will always be terrorists whether they are Islamic militants in central Asia, leftist insurgents in Latin America, narcotics traffickers fighting over turf, or white supremacists in Montana. These folks do not, however, represent the same kind of dire threat as armies poised on a border to invade, nuclear missiles and bombers targeting cities, or navies blockading vital trade routes. Terrorists become a greater threat when they succeed at provoking a military response that saps a country's blood and treasure and recruits more terrorists among civilians caught up in the fighting.

Civilians typically take the heaviest casualties in military campaigns to "defeat" terrorists. What works better are international efforts that share intelligence and coordinate law enforcement operations that thwart attacks and bring the perps to the bar of justice. What works better is international cooperation to mitigate poverty and curtail the weapons trade. What works better are reforms in health care and law enforcement that mitigate the huge demand for illegal drugs.----better and more accessible drug rehab programs, decriminalization, and legalization.

Mostly right, but is there a one size fits all solution? Do you think that we should simply let the Afghan cops and Pakistani cops arrest the terrorists in their countries?

By all means all these social problems need to be seriously tackled, and even heavy force will only achieve so much benefit (at best) in the short term. But don't some problems merit a multipronged response, precisely the ones that are so intractable as what we are discussing?

In a more just world, what the Pakistani and Afghan cops do about terrorism within their own country is not our call as Americans to make. In the real word, Afghan and Pakistani cops are more able than US troops to negotiate agreements with Pashtun tribal leaders. They can speak the language and better understand the culture.

I think infrastructure reconstruction (schools, hospitals, roads, power and water utilities etc.) can mitigate conditions that spawn terrorism. But 'one hand giving while the other takes away' makes no sense. "Heavy force" that inevitably takes civilian casualties just spawns more terrorism.

Arneoker

Aug 16 2009, 08:31 AM

QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 16 2009, 10:06 AM)

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 14 2009, 08:05 PM)

QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 13 2009, 10:33 AM)

There will always be terrorists whether they are Islamic militants in central Asia, leftist insurgents in Latin America, narcotics traffickers fighting over turf, or white supremacists in Montana. These folks do not, however, represent the same kind of dire threat as armies poised on a border to invade, nuclear missiles and bombers targeting cities, or navies blockading vital trade routes. Terrorists become a greater threat when they succeed at provoking a military response that saps a country's blood and treasure and recruits more terrorists among civilians caught up in the fighting.

Civilians typically take the heaviest casualties in military campaigns to "defeat" terrorists. What works better are international efforts that share intelligence and coordinate law enforcement operations that thwart attacks and bring the perps to the bar of justice. What works better is international cooperation to mitigate poverty and curtail the weapons trade. What works better are reforms in health care and law enforcement that mitigate the huge demand for illegal drugs.----better and more accessible drug rehab programs, decriminalization, and legalization.

Mostly right, but is there a one size fits all solution? Do you think that we should simply let the Afghan cops and Pakistani cops arrest the terrorists in their countries?

By all means all these social problems need to be seriously tackled, and even heavy force will only achieve so much benefit (at best) in the short term. But don't some problems merit a multipronged response, precisely the ones that are so intractable as what we are discussing?

In a more just world, what the Pakistani and Afghan cops do about terrorism within their own country is not our call as Americans to make. In the real word, Afghan and Pakistani cops are more able than US troops to negotiate agreements with Pashtun tribal leaders. They can speak the language and better understand the culture.

I think infrastructure reconstruction (schools, hospitals, roads, power and water utilities etc.) can mitigate conditions that spawn terrorism. But 'one hand giving while the other takes away' makes no sense. "Heavy force" that inevitably takes civilian casualties just spawns more terrorism.

Certainly the best thing would be for the Pakistanis and Afghans to do the main job themselves, with no more than some marginal help from others. (BTW, sometimes we can use help ourselves. Certainly the Israelis and British have some useful insights about dealing with terrorists.) But if we literally look at the Afghan cops, well my understanding is that right now they hardly command much respect. That should be improved, of course, but in the meantime what is there? The Afghan military (and probably the best cops in the world would want them to clear out certain areas before they do anything so bold at to attempt to arrest Taliban and Al Qaeda figures. That certainly seems to be the case in Pakistan.) and foreign troops. I think that we would want the Afghans to build up their military as rapidly as possible so that they can deal with things with minimal if any assistance from foreign troops. But I think we ought to allow time for that to happen. I don't think that we can keep this kind of presence indefinitely, that is likely to result in blowback that would cancel out any gains, and more. But it looks like more than six months is needed.

Let's build up infrastructure there. But even you have spoken of protecting that process, and I see good reason for that. The Taliban seems focused on undermining anything the current government does, regardless of how humanitarian it might be. (And then there is their reactionary and often murderous opposition to educating girls.) Now I do think that the emphasis should be on protecting the people over getting the terrorists, precisely because the former is more likely to minimize the causes of terrorism than directly attacking terrorists. I would still do the latter, but sparingly, concentrating on truly high-level targets and avoiding killing innocents.

Arneoker

Aug 16 2009, 08:32 AM

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 15 2009, 09:55 PM)

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 15 2009, 07:24 PM)

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 15 2009, 05:14 PM)

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 15 2009, 03:42 PM)

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 15 2009, 04:39 PM)

Not when stability is maintained with oppression. We have too often erred in that direction...

I agreed that we have too often erred in that direction. I don't think that justifies erring in other ways. For example I think our doing nothing in Rwanda was also an error. Not that we could have simply stopped all of what happened there, but I think we could have stopped a lot of it.

We could have (and I think should have) done a lot more working through other groups, without a unilateral intervention...

The fact is that it has been a part of US foreign policy to make happen and/or let happen a great deal of inter group conflict as a way of keeping our competors out and our investment partners in as a way
of controling access to the resources at hand--in the middle east, Asia, Africa, Latin America and the USSR break away countries...This is my basic objection to the Kissinger approach to foreign policy...

I think that those pursuing unilateralism have done so because of an obsessive desire for as much unshared power as possible. I don't think that they are so nutso that they would stir up conflict in some weird hope that it would facilitate that goal. I really think that it primarily has to be desire for power for its own sake. And I think that the resources thing is more complicated than you seem to think, if anything the Chinese seem to pursuing a policy closer to what you are talking about than we are. If they learn anything over the next few years they will realize that such a goal is basically hopeless, that the best thing to do is to promote open markets for those resources, so that they will be able to have the same shot at them as any other country with money. (And they will have ever more money over the next few years.)

As far as Kissinger goes, I am not a fan of his, but I think you are being quite unfair to him in claiming that he supports this approach. I am very skeptical that you have any kind of proof at all that he supports it.

People like Kissinger sometimes do the right things for the wrong reasons and sometimes do the wrong things for the wrong reasons...

Isn't that pretty much a good general description of all of humanity?

Magmak1

Aug 16 2009, 09:00 AM

I heard it said recently (and here I have paraphrased and rewritten)

that those who wish to retain power

do not seek to win arguments, but merely to prolong them...,

do not endeavor to win the argument or the day, but merely prolong it bycreating the illusion that you have a chance of winning the argument if you put forth better ideas, rhetoric or logic...., and

who understand that to characterize that which you have long-debated, -studied and -comprehended as being eternally beyond any reasonable attempt by them or others to understand and to finalize one's own clarity

is their method of winning the argument.

So when we choose to engage them on these terms, by definition we lose.

The way toward winning the argument is

to expose their game, their methods, and their techniques, and

to understand that anyone with reasonable access to the historical evidence and the facts
who does not conclude that there is a hidden game of manipulated power to serve hidden interests
is either cognitively impaired and/or complicit in their game.

Arneoker

Aug 16 2009, 09:05 AM

Ad hominen attacks or weighing the relative reasonableness of competing argurments.

You decide! (If you have not been judged to be impaired, of course.)

Mac2

Aug 16 2009, 09:21 AM

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 16 2009, 11:05 AM)

Ad hominen attacks or weighing the relative reasonableness of competing argurments.

You decide! (If you have not been judged to be impaired, of course.)

Please explain?

Istoodforu

Aug 16 2009, 09:23 AM

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 16 2009, 09:31 AM)

QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 16 2009, 10:06 AM)

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 14 2009, 08:05 PM)

QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 13 2009, 10:33 AM)

There will always be terrorists whether they are Islamic militants in central Asia, leftist insurgents in Latin America, narcotics traffickers fighting over turf, or white supremacists in Montana. These folks do not, however, represent the same kind of dire threat as armies poised on a border to invade, nuclear missiles and bombers targeting cities, or navies blockading vital trade routes. Terrorists become a greater threat when they succeed at provoking a military response that saps a country's blood and treasure and recruits more terrorists among civilians caught up in the fighting.

Civilians typically take the heaviest casualties in military campaigns to "defeat" terrorists. What works better are international efforts that share intelligence and coordinate law enforcement operations that thwart attacks and bring the perps to the bar of justice. What works better is international cooperation to mitigate poverty and curtail the weapons trade. What works better are reforms in health care and law enforcement that mitigate the huge demand for illegal drugs.----better and more accessible drug rehab programs, decriminalization, and legalization.

Mostly right, but is there a one size fits all solution? Do you think that we should simply let the Afghan cops and Pakistani cops arrest the terrorists in their countries?

By all means all these social problems need to be seriously tackled, and even heavy force will only achieve so much benefit (at best) in the short term. But don't some problems merit a multipronged response, precisely the ones that are so intractable as what we are discussing?

In a more just world, what the Pakistani and Afghan cops do about terrorism within their own country is not our call as Americans to make. In the real word, Afghan and Pakistani cops are more able than US troops to negotiate agreements with Pashtun tribal leaders. They can speak the language and better understand the culture.

I think infrastructure reconstruction (schools, hospitals, roads, power and water utilities etc.) can mitigate conditions that spawn terrorism. But 'one hand giving while the other takes away' makes no sense. "Heavy force" that inevitably takes civilian casualties just spawns more terrorism.

Certainly the best thing would be for the Pakistanis and Afghans to do the main job themselves, with no more than some marginal help from others. (BTW, sometimes we can use help ourselves. Certainly the Israelis and British have some useful insights about dealing with terrorists.) But if we literally look at the Afghan cops, well my understanding is that right now they hardly command much respect. That should be improved, of course, but in the meantime what is there? The Afghan military (and probably the best cops in the world would want them to clear out certain areas before they do anything so bold at to attempt to arrest Taliban and Al Qaeda figures. That certainly seems to be the case in Pakistan.) and foreign troops. I think that we would want the Afghans to build up their military as rapidly as possible so that they can deal with things with minimal if any assistance from foreign troops. But I think we ought to allow time for that to happen. I don't think that we can keep this kind of presence indefinitely, that is likely to result in blowback that would cancel out any gains, and more. But it looks like more than six months is needed.

Let's build up infrastructure there. But even you have spoken of protecting that process, and I see good reason for that. The Taliban seems focused on undermining anything the current government does, regardless of how humanitarian it might be. (And then there is their reactionary and often murderous opposition to educating girls.) Now I do think that the emphasis should be on protecting the people over getting the terrorists, precisely because the former is more likely to minimize the causes of terrorism than directly attacking terrorists. I would still do the latter, but sparingly, concentrating on truly high-level targets and avoiding killing innocents.

The meter has been running for nearly seven years!!!!

Obama has sent in 20,000 more troops "to finish the job" but then we hear leaks from the Pentagon that McChrystal may soon ask for 40,000 more troops. Military 'experts' estimate that it will take another decade to complete the mission. In the meantime, we desperately need the "peace dividend" of withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan to help get some semblance of control over deficit spending.

A lot of the public anger over health care reform is a realization that there probably isn't enough money to pay for it. The fear of economic collapse is stalling our political will to invest in domestic reforms. People go to town hall meetings to argue over places to put their deck chairs. The US public has been so brainwashed by the notion of "peace through strength" that only a few of us radicals can recognize the wisdom of "strength through peace."

"Cut and run" makes a lot more sense than "to much invested to quit."

The time for a course change in US foreign policy is YESTERDAY.

rla

Aug 16 2009, 09:47 AM

I agreed that we have too often erred in that direction. I don't think that justifies erring in other ways. For example I think our doing nothing in Rwanda was also an error. Not that we could have simply stopped all of what happened there, but I think we could have stopped a lot of it.
[/quote]

We could have (and I think should have) done a lot more working through other groups, without a unilateral intervention...

The fact is that it has been a part of US foreign policy to make happen and/or let happen a great deal of inter group conflict as a way of keeping our competors out and our investment partners in as a way
of controling access to the resources at hand--in the middle east, Asia, Africa, Latin America and the USSR break away countries...This is my basic objection to the Kissinger approach to foreign policy...
[/quote]
I think that those pursuing unilateralism have done so because of an obsessive desire for as much unshared power as possible. I don't think that they are so nutso that they would stir up conflict in some weird hope that it would facilitate that goal. I really think that it primarily has to be desire for power for its own sake. And I think that the resources thing is more complicated than you seem to think, if anything the Chinese seem to pursuing a policy closer to what you are talking about than we are. If they learn anything over the next few years they will realize that such a goal is basically hopeless, that the best thing to do is to promote open markets for those resources, so that they will be able to have the same shot at them as any other country with money. (And they will have ever more money over the next few years.)

As far as Kissinger goes, I am not a fan of his, but I think you are being quite unfair to him in claiming that he supports this approach. I am very skeptical that you have any kind of proof at all that he supports it.
[/quote]

People like Kissinger sometimes do the right things for the wrong reasons and sometimes do the wrong things for the wrong reasons...
[/quote]
Isn't that pretty much a good general description of all of humanity?
[/quote]

No, lots of people do the right thing for the right reason much of the time...

Arneoker

Aug 16 2009, 09:54 AM

QUOTE(Mac2 @ Aug 16 2009, 11:21 AM)

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 16 2009, 11:05 AM)

Ad hominen attacks or weighing the relative reasonableness of competing argurments.

You decide! (If you have not been judged to be impaired, of course.)

Please explain?

Which do you think is a better way of making an argument, through ad hominen attacks or weighing the relative reasonableness of competing argurments?

Mac2

Aug 16 2009, 09:55 AM

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 16 2009, 11:54 AM)

QUOTE(Mac2 @ Aug 16 2009, 11:21 AM)

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 16 2009, 11:05 AM)

Ad hominen attacks or weighing the relative reasonableness of competing argurments.

You decide! (If you have not been judged to be impaired, of course.)

Please explain?

Which do you think is a better way of making an argument, through ad hominen attacks or weighing the relative reasonableness of competing argurments?

My request was for an explanation. If you can not or do not wish to give one, say so.

Arneoker

Aug 16 2009, 09:56 AM

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 16 2009, 11:47 AM)

No, lots of people do the right thing for the right reason much of the time...

Which of course does not preclude them from sometimes doing the right things for the wrong reasons and sometimes doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

Humanity can get pretty complicated sometimes!

rla

Aug 16 2009, 09:59 AM

Arne, "Certainly the best thing would be for the Afganis and Pakistanis to do the job themselves without any
outside help."

This is the kind of micro-management the US can not reasonably be expected to carry out successfully. We've been making these job assignments to the Afgans and Pakistanis for years, and killing their women and children
when they fail to perform up to our expectations and we wonder why we don't win any hearts and minds...

Arneoker

Aug 16 2009, 10:00 AM

QUOTE(Mac2 @ Aug 16 2009, 11:55 AM)

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 16 2009, 11:54 AM)

QUOTE(Mac2 @ Aug 16 2009, 11:21 AM)

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 16 2009, 11:05 AM)

Ad hominen attacks or weighing the relative reasonableness of competing argurments.

You decide! (If you have not been judged to be impaired, of course.)

Please explain?

Which do you think is a better way of making an argument, through ad hominen attacks or weighing the relative reasonableness of competing argurments?

My request was for an explanation. If you can not or do not wish to give one, say so.

I thought I did by putting my question in a different form. Now I made that post in response to the apparent contention that "anyone with reasonable access to the historical evidence and the facts who does not conclude that there is a hidden game of manipulated power to serve hidden interests is either cognitively impaired and/or complicit in their game" which seemed to be an ad hominen attack on those who do not believe this idea about this "hidden game" as the implication is that they are either ignorant, intellectually deficient, or evil.

If there is anything else you would like explained you are going to have to ask a more specific question.

Arneoker

Aug 16 2009, 10:06 AM

QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 16 2009, 11:23 AM)

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 16 2009, 09:31 AM)

QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 16 2009, 10:06 AM)

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 14 2009, 08:05 PM)

QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 13 2009, 10:33 AM)

There will always be terrorists whether they are Islamic militants in central Asia, leftist insurgents in Latin America, narcotics traffickers fighting over turf, or white supremacists in Montana. These folks do not, however, represent the same kind of dire threat as armies poised on a border to invade, nuclear missiles and bombers targeting cities, or navies blockading vital trade routes. Terrorists become a greater threat when they succeed at provoking a military response that saps a country's blood and treasure and recruits more terrorists among civilians caught up in the fighting.

Civilians typically take the heaviest casualties in military campaigns to "defeat" terrorists. What works better are international efforts that share intelligence and coordinate law enforcement operations that thwart attacks and bring the perps to the bar of justice. What works better is international cooperation to mitigate poverty and curtail the weapons trade. What works better are reforms in health care and law enforcement that mitigate the huge demand for illegal drugs.----better and more accessible drug rehab programs, decriminalization, and legalization.

Mostly right, but is there a one size fits all solution? Do you think that we should simply let the Afghan cops and Pakistani cops arrest the terrorists in their countries?

By all means all these social problems need to be seriously tackled, and even heavy force will only achieve so much benefit (at best) in the short term. But don't some problems merit a multipronged response, precisely the ones that are so intractable as what we are discussing?

In a more just world, what the Pakistani and Afghan cops do about terrorism within their own country is not our call as Americans to make. In the real word, Afghan and Pakistani cops are more able than US troops to negotiate agreements with Pashtun tribal leaders. They can speak the language and better understand the culture.

I think infrastructure reconstruction (schools, hospitals, roads, power and water utilities etc.) can mitigate conditions that spawn terrorism. But 'one hand giving while the other takes away' makes no sense. "Heavy force" that inevitably takes civilian casualties just spawns more terrorism.

Certainly the best thing would be for the Pakistanis and Afghans to do the main job themselves, with no more than some marginal help from others. (BTW, sometimes we can use help ourselves. Certainly the Israelis and British have some useful insights about dealing with terrorists.) But if we literally look at the Afghan cops, well my understanding is that right now they hardly command much respect. That should be improved, of course, but in the meantime what is there? The Afghan military (and probably the best cops in the world would want them to clear out certain areas before they do anything so bold at to attempt to arrest Taliban and Al Qaeda figures. That certainly seems to be the case in Pakistan.) and foreign troops. I think that we would want the Afghans to build up their military as rapidly as possible so that they can deal with things with minimal if any assistance from foreign troops. But I think we ought to allow time for that to happen. I don't think that we can keep this kind of presence indefinitely, that is likely to result in blowback that would cancel out any gains, and more. But it looks like more than six months is needed.

Let's build up infrastructure there. But even you have spoken of protecting that process, and I see good reason for that. The Taliban seems focused on undermining anything the current government does, regardless of how humanitarian it might be. (And then there is their reactionary and often murderous opposition to educating girls.) Now I do think that the emphasis should be on protecting the people over getting the terrorists, precisely because the former is more likely to minimize the causes of terrorism than directly attacking terrorists. I would still do the latter, but sparingly, concentrating on truly high-level targets and avoiding killing innocents.

The meter has been running for nearly seven years!!!!

Obama has sent in 20,000 more troops "to finish the job" but then we hear leaks from the Pentagon that McChrystal may soon ask for 40,000 more troops. Military 'experts' estimate that it will take another decade to complete the mission. In the meantime, we desperately need the "peace dividend" of withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan to help get some semblance of control over deficit spending.

A lot of the public anger over health care reform is a realization that there probably isn't enough money to pay for it. The fear of economic collapse is stalling our political will to invest in domestic reforms. People go to town hall meetings to argue over places to put their deck chairs. The US public has been so brainwashed by the notion of "peace through strength" that only a few of us radicals can recognize the wisdom of "strength through peace."

"Cut and run" makes a lot more sense than "to much invested to quit."

The time for a course change in US foreign policy is YESTERDAY.

Putting in a few more thousand troops for a while does not automatically mean that they will be there, with no reduction in numbers, for a decade. Defense spending is not the only big budget issue, the nasty truth is that entitlement spending, which is mostly for the middle class, is the biggest headache we need to deal with. I am not trying to divert here, but if we are going talk budget we need some perspective.

As slogans go I think both "peace through strength" and "strength through peace" are good ones. I think the latter contains the more powerful truth, but I would keep either in mind.

Arneoker

Aug 16 2009, 10:11 AM

QUOTE(rla @ Aug 16 2009, 11:59 AM)

Arne, "Certainly the best thing would be for the Afganis and Pakistanis to do the job themselves without any
outside help."

This is the kind of micro-management the US can not reasonably be expected to carry out successfully. We've been making these job assignments to the Afgans and Pakistanis for years, and killing their women and children
when they fail to perform up to our expectations and we wonder why we don't win any hearts and minds...

You don't think that I know that the Afghanis and Pakistanis would not be figuring this out for themselves, that they have security needs? I don't assign the job of feeding yourself to you, do I? I know you are most likely to be dealing with that yourself, whatever my concern for your welfare. Now if you had some problem though, maybe you could not chew for some reason, maybe you would need my help getting some alternative method of food intake set up for you. But of course you would likely know that you had that need, and would ask for it.