Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
The echos of Afghanistan
British politicians are fond of telling the public that fighting in Afghanistan prevents bombs going off at home. Considering that more than half the population wants the army out of Afghanistan, and there's an election coming, it's not a surprise that the people hoping to keep their jobs (who are the same people who decided to the send the troops there in the first place) like to stress the most obvious, stark justification. "The army stays in Afghanistan so you don't blown up on your way to work".
"Well, yeah.. ok," Londonstani's often thought; "but is this one of those situations where politicians and spin doctors decide that the public needs the most face-slap basic message to understand its own self interest?"
There's a bigger picture problem with getting out of Afghanistan too early and today the head of the army, Sir David Richards made it very clear:
"Failure would have a catalytic effect on militant Islam around the world and in the region because the message would be that al-Qaeda and the Taliban have defeated the US and the British and Nato, the most powerful alliance in the world. So why wouldn't that have an intoxicating effect on militants everywhere? The geo-strategic implications would be immense."
What does that mean exactly? Imagine extremists operating in a place far away from Afghanistan are struggling to convince their local audience that austerity and rejection will end corruption, increase justice and restore their pride. A place like, say, Nigeria. In the vast majority of instances, these groups are shunned not because of the intervention of others but because of their own excesses and unpopular practices.
What happens when the Taliban succeeds in making good al Qaeda's vow to defeat the remaining world superpower as they destroyed the Soviets (according to their own image projection)? A realistic projection resulting from the steriod injection of kudos such as outcome would produce will likely include a strengthening of groups in places like Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Indonesia, Pakistan as well as the emergence of groups in all sorts of unexpected places (like inner city London).
Result? Decades of small wars all over the globe, increased civilians deaths (in Western and Muslim countries) and therefore continued escalation, higher defence costs and disruption to global trade etc. So if you think Afghanistan is bad...
The main problem facing the
The main problem facing the British defence establishment is that after it's inability to pacify Basra and now Helmand increasing numbers of British tax payers are asking what are we paying for? A military which is costing nearly $ 100 billion per year can't secure a few districts in Helmand the question has to be asked about the ability of the military to perform it's core functions. The arguments coming out of MOD are far more to do with protecting the military from future cuts than protecting Britain.
Just an Australian doesn't
Just an Australian doesn't understand this extrapolation, this leap of logic. Even if the coalition of the 'willing' (or 'incompetent, or whatever) get kicked out of Afghanistan with their tails between their legs (err, I mean, declare victory), so what?
What local insurgency is going to able to argue that matching conditions prevail? Lawless society, crazy geography, where the occupying power has the capability to leave with only embarrassment... where do these conditions prevail? Maybe a (slightly) dignified withdrawal will actually demonstrate that USA et al is not actually an imperial power to be fought?
Oz
"What happens when the
"What happens when the Taliban succeeds in making good al Qaeda's vow to defeat the remaining world superpower as they destroyed the Soviets (according to their own image projection)? A realistic projection resulting from the steriod injection of kudos such as outcome would produce will likely include a strengthening of groups in places like Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Indonesia, Pakistan as well as the emergence of groups in all sorts of unexpected places (like inner city London)."
Do you really think this is likely? I ask the question in all seriousness. It sounds a lot like another domino theory to me, which does not mean its not true. I tend to agree with Oz. I suggest there is an opportunity for the exit to be light years better stage managed than a helicopter off the US embassy roof.
"Maybe a (slightly) dignified withdrawal will actually demonstrate that USA et al is not actually an imperial power to be fought?" A victory parade in reverse, even. I reckon it would take 12-18 months to implement.
This is true only if your
This is true only if your 'projection' is 'realistic'. To me, it sounds like the domino theory statements that were made during the VietNam era. Those had much the same compelling urgency and they turned out to be wrong. Our problem is that no-one currently in power is old enough to remember the lessons of those days. They've read of them, but they didn't live through them and they are so much history, as applicable as the Schleswig-Holstein affair.
My take on it is that there is no compelling national interest to keep us there, certainly not at the projected cost. AQ and their ilk is getting much more mileage out of the 'foreign aggressor killing muslim brothers and murdering families' story than any claims of 'victory' would give them. AQ and the Talibs are not natural allies, and AQ doesn't need AF as a base any longer, if they ever did. The driving issues in places like Nigeria are local, not pan-Islam.
Certainly, we don't want to announce defeat and burn our regimental flags, but the recent, somewhat flawed, elections in AF give us a good excuse to quietly draw down forces to something more like a MAAG group and to let the Afghans solve their own problems.
I read about this in history
I read about this in history class. It's called the "Domino theory."
While I agree that its a
While I agree that its a case of domino theory, I think it nevertheless is true, to an extent. It would create a very strong myth of the pure jihadis prevailing through the grace of Allah against both Great Satans, much like Cromwells victory sent reverbations inside christianity.. The religious part of this struggle can never be forgotten.
"What happens when the
"What happens when the Taliban succeeds in making good al Qaeda's vow to defeat the remaining world superpower as they destroyed the Soviets (according to their own image projection)? "
I suggest you review the usefulness of the meme of Chechen defeat of the Russians. False confindence is self-destructive. Speaking of the domino theory, notice that the Communists rolled up to the borders of Thailand and knew when to stop. The Jihadis have never demonstrated this wisdom, from the loss of Afghanistan to the loss of Swat.
Here's something for you to chew on, Londonstani: imagine an America backing India to win a war against Pakistan some time after a second 9/11, instead of trying to keep the two sides from war like in December 2001.
Knocking Londonstani's point
Knocking Londonstani's point just because it sounds like domino theory is just like all knocking any kind diplomacy with "rogue states" by referencing the Munich. Since "everyone knows" that the domino theory was wrong the comparison becomes a handy method of avoiding examining the idea on its merits.
The ironic thing is that is the domino theory was a pretty good description of reality from the end of World War II to 1970. But things change, and any simple description of the world is bound to be wrong in long run.
The old school cold warriors who formulated the domino theory based on the world that they saw around them did not imagine that China and Russia would one day be enemies. After all, did not Russia give China the technology for the atomic bomb on a silver platter?
The fact that old school cold warriors were unable to foresee the rift that would open up in the communist world does not change the fact that communist success bred communist success for many years. It is a lot easier to wage an insurgency of any type when you have a willing arms supplier and a safe haven.
Bringing Londonstani argument back to the present, it could be argued that we have already observed the effects that he is talking about in al Qaeda' rise to prominence. After all, al Qaeda's cool factor came from being the one who pulled off attacks on American and got away with it. There were plenty of other Islamic insurgencies in the world but they were the only one's who could boast that they took the battle to America (and I am talking pre-9/11).
One could also discuss how America's withdrawal from Somali was perceived in the Islamic world.
The bottom line is that anyone who thinks that their preferred policy choice will have no negative consequences is not arguing from a very realistic view of the world.
The real argument is not wither withdrawing from Afghanistan will have a negative impact on US interests. Rather, the real argument is whether staying or going will have the bigger negative impact on US interests. Ideally we would never be faced with such a choice. But that is not how the world is.
Who wants to any country given up to like the Taliban given a choice? But then, who would want to fight in group like the Taliban in Afghanistan given a choice?
Knocking Londonstani's point
Knocking Londonstani's point just because it sounds like domino theory is just like all knocking any kind diplomacy with "rogue states" by referencing the Munich. Since "everyone knows" that the domino theory was wrong the comparison becomes a handy method of avoiding examining the idea on its merits.
The ironic thing is that is the domino theory was a pretty good description of reality from the end of World War II to 1970. But things change, and any simple description of the world is bound to be wrong in long run.
The old school cold warriors who formulated the domino theory based on the world that they saw around them did not imagine that China and Russia would one day be enemies. After all, did not Russia give China the technology for the atomic bomb on a silver platter?
The fact that old school cold warriors were unable to foresee the rift that would open up in the communist world does not change the fact that communist success bred communist success for many years. It is a lot easier to wage an insurgency of any type when you have a willing arms supplier and a safe haven.
Bringing Londonstani argument back to the present, it could be argued that we have already observed the effects that he is talking about in al Qaeda' rise to prominence. After all, al Qaeda's cool factor came from being the one who pulled off attacks on American and got away with it. There were plenty of other Islamic insurgencies in the world but they were the only one's who could boast that they took the battle to America (and I am talking pre-9/11).
One could also discuss how America's withdrawal from Somali was perceived in the Islamic world.
The bottom line is that anyone who thinks that their preferred policy choice will have no negative consequences is not arguing from a very realistic view of the world.
The real argument is not wither withdrawing from Afghanistan will have a negative impact on US interests. Rather, the real argument is whether staying or going will have the bigger negative impact on US interests. Ideally we would never be faced with such a choice. But that is not how the world is.
Who wants to any country given up to like the Taliban given a choice? But then, who would want to fight in group like the Taliban in Afghanistan given a choice?
Another uneasy point that
Another uneasy point that the withdrawalists seem to push under the carpet, is that if Taleban becomes resurgent, people will flee back into the camps in Pakistan. ANd this time they will be radicalized against the west. Thats a huge breeding ground for terrorist activity created right there.
Wanat
Wanat 2?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?ref=global-home
Why are soldiers still stuck
Why are soldiers still stuck in FOB's, miles from anywhere, surrounded by hostiles where no developement can take place:
Hundreds of insurgents attacked a pair of isolated outposts in eastern Afghanistan, killing eight US soldiers and several Afghan policemen in the deadliest battle in 15 months. Scores more Afghan policemen were reportedly captured by the Taleban.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6860616.e...
It's especially bad as seemingly, this outpost is to be abandoned. Why the wait?
'What we in the United States and Britain have done in Iraq and Afghanistan is unknowingly illuminate the clash not between civilizations, but between modernity and antiquity. That clash is more acute in Afghanistan than Iraq, but it's an insurmountable obstacle to nation-building in both places. We proclaim moral principles when justifying our actions, but we wreak havoc and destruction on a backward, ancient world we do not understand'.
'Our troops are not anthropologists or sociologists, they are soldiers and Marines who have been sent to impose America's will on backward societies. The result is mutual hatred - not everywhere, but in enough places to feed what American military leaders like to call an "insurgency," the same word the British Army applied in 1920 to the Irish rebellion'.
http://www.counterpunch.org/macgregor10012009.html
'There is nothing new in General McChrystal's strategy, it is merely a rehash of the failed oil spot (tache d'huile) strategy, first tried by French colonialist General Louis-Hubert-Gonsalve Lyautey, and then tried again under various guises, again without lasting success, by the Americans in Vietnam'.
http://www.counterpunch.org/spinney09222009.html
Counterpunch is v. left wing but they have had some interesting analysis on Afghanistan lately.
Poor assumptions and
Poor assumptions and premises behind this argument. Have you considered that this situation is what we've had since WWII and are very likely to have, including in the US, from other disruptive cultures and societies in the future regardless of what we do in Afghanistan? E.g., extreme right wing groups (militias) and organized crime (drug cartels) in North America.
If you bring in the problems of "natural security" that CNAS has wisely decided to focus on with a separate blog, you'll find that these problems constitute the critical path of increasing political violence globally. Population explosions and decreasing resources, both quantitatively and qualitatively, equal increased conflict.
In short, Islamic extremism, and any other kind of extremism, are but emblems of these deeper problems.
Please pay attention to the big picture.
EMN
Exum, did you grow a beard
Exum, did you grow a beard so the ANPs wouldn't gang rape you any more?
http://www.theprovince.com/story_print.html?id=2014450&sponsor
"Man love thursday" coming soon to AbuMuqawama
Every conflict is the new
Every conflict is the new Vietnam.
Every pointing out of consequences for retreat and defeat is the new Domino theory.
And "Everyone knows" the Domino theory was wrong, because the Jon Stewart's of their day were good at mocking it.
Everyone knows that Bien Pensants know what's better for us. It's all that practical experience they get in academe and snarking around salons and cafes, or the internet.
No one seems to know that the Domino's started falling in 1949 in China, and didn't stop until they got to the Thai Border (quite possibly because they were tired, and the Sino-Soviet split). That's China, North Vietnam, Laos, South Vietnam, Cambodia, and very nearly South Korea, Malaya, and the Philippines. But of course it was wrong because our Bien Pensants tell us so...
And everyone else in the world knows that Bien Pensants, Labor and the Democratic Party haven't had an effective war leader since Harry Truman, and indeed you've lost the will to win and the very knowledge of what victory is - or if it exists. You are right to quit, YOU can't win, so you shouldn't fight.
And everyone else is lining up for the spoils.
http://www.theprovince.com/st
http://www.theprovince.com/story_print.html?id=2014450&sponsor
i wonder what the repercussions would be if a western soldier gunned down the men raping the child.
Elf: You forgot that every
Elf: You forgot that every attempt at thinking rationally is an example of metro-sexuality and dhimmitude. Sigh.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/10/-mogadishu-somal...
Not that I dont agree with you on democratic war-leading.
Check
Check it:
http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2009/09/10/ian-fisher-american-sold...
@Fnord, We can and should
@Fnord,
We can and should debate this as scholars, soldiers, citizens, pols, et al..
But I just can't stand to hear anymore comparisons to Vietnam or the Domino theory....although I don't think you've bought it up.
Enuf already world (US world mainly) with the VietSpam. Genug!! ¡basta!
Đủ!
It was 40 years ago. And while there are some similarities the analogy and comparisons don't hold up.
Let's pick another war. How about King Philips war? (I think that's a lot closer).
If the option to pack up and
If the option to pack up and bring em' home is exercised I have no doubt that AQ and associates are more than able to win the propaganda war in terms of who gets to shout we won the loudest.
They have a receptive audience that is desperate for any victory, so a complete pull out by western forces is a boon to them.
As Fnord points out there is a mythology at play here and that mythology is built on the perception of a prevailing Muslim army that defeats its christian oppressors.
That perception can only be strengthened by a withdrawal.
Jason Burke highlighted the three tiered structure of AQ. Its hardcore leadership, its network of affiliates and then its existence and an ideas, an inspiration and justification. I see that third tier as the problem, its hard to kinetically reduce an idea, and the withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan, their loss of this war can only assist to strength that third tier, the idea that the fores arrayed against Jihadists can be defeated
As to domino - three weeks in Vietnam talking and eating wiht the locals told me one things I had never gelamed from dispatches or Chicken hawk. The VC/NVA forces were tired and sick, nearly out of ammo and very nearly out of will. One lovely dinner companion told me that if the US had stayed just a few more years they would have thrown in the towel.
Bin Laden cited our
Bin Laden cited our willingness to withdraw (Mog, etc) as big recruiting point when issuing fatwas condemning the US for occupying Muslim lands to conduct standoff warfare against other Muslim lands throughout the 90's.
A theory based on recent experience is not the same as a theory based on nothing but an anticipated future.
@AJM: "Why are soldiers still stuck in FOB's miles from anywhere, surrounded by hostiles where no developement can take place:?"
Because at this point it turns out we have no clear strategy after all. Everything is ON HOLD. All eagerly await further instruction.
The other piece to consider
The other piece to consider is convincing any future partner - regardless of the degree we require their help or they ours - that we are a reliable, stick to it type of partner who will assist them in eliminating the bad guys in their midst.
That goes beyond al Qaeda et al, but if we have any hope whatsoever of working with Yemen, Nigeria, or anyone to any degree towards a counterterror goal you can watch that degrade rapidly whether AQ gets a recruiting boost or not. (Surely Pakistan would be impressed by our leaving A'stan, too.)
David Sutton: "If the
David Sutton: "If the option to pack up and bring em' home is exercised I have no doubt that AQ and associates are more than able to win the propaganda war in terms of who gets to shout we won the loudest."
You "have no doubt ...That perception can only be strengthened by a withdrawal." because "there is a mythology at play here..."
You don't see that there is equally a 'mythology' on the part of many in the US, built on the perception of Christians (and Jews) defeating Muslim oppressors?
Comment by Eadwacer on
Comment by Eadwacer on October 4, 2009 - 12:29am
"This is true only if your 'projection' is 'realistic'. To me, it sounds like the domino theory statements that were made during the VietNam era."
It may sound "like" Vietnam era Domino Theory, but surely it sounds "exactly like" assessments in the wake of the the Iranian revolution and the jihadist defeat of the soviets. The first also being a prediction about Communism, the second being what happened with jihadist causes.
Nature abhors a vacuum,
Nature abhors a vacuum, politics abhors a vacuum. There is no national government in Afghanistan today. Karzhai is an American convenience latched onto in 2001 after Masood was assassinated by al-Qaeda and because he is an educated man who spoke English. But he is Pashtun (which is another factor we saw as a plus) and he has to go along with the majority of his people who see the current situation (correctly, I believe) as a time not to be wasted. That means there is now a big push by the Pashtun to claim their own political space in that very fragmented country. Unfortunately, the Taliban tend to be overwhelmingly Pashtun as well. I think what we are seeing in Afghanistan is the beginning of a civil war (this would be a good time for the Vietnam analogists to raise their heads and cock their ears) and it seems to this observer a very good time to look for the way out.
We did not go to Afghanistan to re-invent their political system, we went to kill bin Laden his gang of thugs. That is still the mission. Anything that detracts from that prolongs the policy failure we are currently witnessing.
And as an aside, except for the commentors here who have government jobs and therefore government health care, is Afghanistan more important to your family, over the short or long term, than health care and can we as a country afford both given the current realities?
"And as an aside, except for
"And as an aside, except for the commentors here who have government jobs and therefore government health care, is Afghanistan more important to your family, over the short or long term, than health care and can we as a country afford both given the current realities?"
In fact we can afford neither, given "the current realities."
But, as this is not a sane world, that won't stop the politicians from attempting both.
But of course, major
But of course, major consequences being years down the line - they don't have to worry about that.
Elf - to me the domino
Elf - to me the domino theory re Vietnam is an abstract concept which was trotted out to support a dogma, which was proved to be false with relation to Vietnam.
as i said in my earliest post, this does not mean a jihadi domino theory is not true.
I don't know whether we should leave Afghanistan or not. There is merit in the argument of staying out or sheer bloodymindedness, but this will get a lot of NATO forces killed.
Its all very 1943 at the moment if you ask me.
The Domino Theory was
The Domino Theory was certainly on people's minds at the time, especially among expats in the region after the Fall of Saigon. A local bit of humour making the rounds went that the Vietnamese may try to invade Thailand, but their tanks would get stuck in traffic and they'd get get fed up and turn back.
With regards to "domino
With regards to "domino theory": Please stop using it, weve seen terms from this blog start creeping into the main info-sphere before. In industry, we would call a debate about withdrawal for "consequence assessment", or CA. If the west declares defeat, then that will have consequences, no way around it, and for bin Laden it will be strike two in his three-point battleplan: The US is out of Saudi lands, there will be a "caliphate" established (inside Pashtunia, true, but still a jihadi homeland) and then he will have the expulsion of infidel troops (including Israeli) on his to-do list in order to claim total victory.
"We did not go to Afghanistan to re-invent their political system, we went to kill bin Laden his gang of thugs. That is still the mission. Anything that detracts from that prolongs the policy failure we are currently witnessing." That is simply not true. President GWB made all sorts of statements regarding the mission in Afghanistan up to and including womens liberation. No manner of retroactive mission descriptions can avoid that fact. As Greyhawk points out, the issue of national credibility is at stake, as is Obamas political future on the world stage: Since he has already caved in and let the Israelis run his near ME politics, his Cairo initiativ is shot all to hell. If he pulls out of Afghanistan, this will cement the imnage of "the Fat Kid", as Old Blue so beautifully puts it at http://afghanquest.com/?p=374
As to Health Care vs. Afghanistan, being a foreigner Im a bit confused: As I read it the new health care model was designed to *save* money for the state, not be a net outlay. ANyways, with a Iraqi drawdown, I would assume resources will be available. In poker, there is a term called "pot-commited", when you have put so much on the table that its rational to follow through. The afghanis who have made a bet on us have literaly bet their lives that we are going to follow through. That whole movement of trust is what is at stake, and from my pov we are heavily pot-commited at the moment.
Oh, and note to democrats: YOURE ACTING LIKE THE FREAKING COMMUNIST PARTY. Trying to rule by infinite comitees is really cool if your wish is to rise in a nomenclature, because it shifts the blame all ways when things go wrong. But at sometime you have to make a decision, and sell that decision, and optimalize your assets to make that decision become truth.A war doesnt take time-outs, so get a freaking grip and at least come up with a interim plan for the next year (wich I already thought was in place). Gods, your current political parties seem to be a choice between the republican sun-emperor model of presidency and democratic comitee-compromise ineffectivity. Get a freaking grip! Stop being afraid of the republicans just because they yell at you! And for once in your sorry lives, think about something else than re-election?
Oh, and where in the world is the US Statedepartment? Havent seen it since 2007.
@Fnord, Uh, Wow. Best I
@Fnord,
Uh, Wow.
Best I can do this early...
I'm sorry that the Domino
I'm sorry that the Domino Theory thing came up. WRT AF it's kindof like Godwin's Law, and makes it hard to discuss things rationally. Let me rephrase the argument, in part by stealing arguments from others in this comment stream.
1. The US is still the world's greatest superpower, and there is nothing that any fringe group can do to us that will overcome that major fact of life. When we deal with countries and groups, they know this.
2. Nothing that any of the non-state actors (and very few states) can do to us rises much above momentary embarrassment. Whatever they do, see (1). In fact, I'd hypothesize that this is a general rule. I cannot think of a single case in history where a major power made the argument that "we must do this or the others will think we are weak" and had that argument stand the test of time.
3. The primary threat appears to come from ourselves, through overreaction to embarrassments. We are the ones who created a whole generation of US-haters in IQ and AF, and poured thousands of lives* and billions in treasure down the drain. *US lives. There were also a few hundred thousand other lives, and they all have cousins.
4. Triggering an overreaction is, of course, the whole goal of terrorist groups. Read what Peter Senge has to say about trim tabs. Avoiding overreaction is something the US doesn't seem capable of.
My conclusion is that pulling major combat forces out of AF will cause less harm to US interests worldwide, over time, than staying there and destroying our military, our economy, and our credibility. Karzai has given us an excellent opportunity. We should take it.
Eadwacer: Fair enough
Eadwacer: Fair enough points, some counterpoints:
1) The US is still the worlds greatest *military* superpower, other areas are much more in question. If the US abandons Afghan aft6er making shitloads of promises, you effectively abandon the whole area to China and Russia, and loose a large amount of credibility. Think of it as a brand name, the US brandname will be marked as associative to "fck up and run". Also, politically you are utterly divided, on the brink of civil conflict, while China, Russia and Brasil enjoy stable leadership and positive real approval of the government. So Old Blues image still stands tall: Youre like a allpowerful hyperactive child without any will or ability to focus on a serious problem for any amount of time. Pulling out will confirm this, the US as a nation of quitters.
2) Im not sure that a nuke in New York is only a momentary embarassment. Or a bombing of the Saudi monarchy. Or a Pakistan in civil war. Or repeated Mumbais. Your argument #2 precludes a isolationist US that is only concerned with its own borders, as well as securing parts of their commons, and also relies on a "best possible outcome" scenario rather than factoring in various worst case scenarios.
3) True, and I was shouting it at the top of my lungs in 2003, even going to jail for it. But just as important in the umma is the concept of honour and how you keep your words. If the US pulls out after 8 years of promises and leaves the Afghan population to the mercies of Taleban, then the US will be once again branded with utter dishonour, just as many saw the abandoning of the kurds and shias in Desert Storm. More, its a direct hit for AQ propaganda about honourless infidels who are corrupted by porn and decadence, etc. (Compared to Iraq, the civilian deathtoll in Afghan is miniscule.)
4) The over-reaction has already been triggered. Were not talking about going in but about pulling out now, at the first point of the new administration. Were effectively talking about abandoning COIN before it has even been attempted seriously implemented.
If the US economy and military is so strained that a couple of more years at slightly raised activity in AF is going to cr5ush you forever as a nation, then
Old Blue on the issue:
Old Blue on the issue: http://afghanquest.com/?p=380
"...Some argue that Afghanistan was not the birthplace of the non-state operation that brought two of the tallest buildings in the world crashing to the ground and punched a hole in the Pentagon over eight years ago. Yes, some of the conspiracy was performed in places such as Germany and the United States; but the concept, funding and coordination for the execution came through the headquarters in Afghanistan. It is simply willful negligence to fail to acquire the simple information that the Taliban were very active supporters of al Qaida, and that al Qaida reciprocated by recruiting, training, equipping and paying thousands to fight for the Taliban. There was an entire brigade of al Qaida funded, equipped and paid troops who fought alongside the Taliban in their offensives against the Northern Alliance. This brigade was to serve as basic combat training for each of them to take Takfiri revolution to their own countries. Remember those crazy Uighers who were released from Gitmo and are now sipping virgin daiquiris on some tropical island? They came from there. There is an article from June, 2001, quoting them as saying that this is why they were there, to take Islamic revolution back to China. (Of course, we don’t care about that, since really anything bad that happens to China only makes us giggle, anyway. So does the thought of Uighers sipping tropical drinks, though.) Training camps for al Qaida existed in Afghanistan, in areas that were well-controlled by Taliban. Those who wish to excuse the Taliban from any association with al Qaida are, again, willfully ignoring information that is readily available which indicates that the association was close and mutually beneficial.
Afghanistan was a critical component in al Qaida’s ability to further its aims. The failed state of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was a great threat to American security and this was proven on more than one occasion, finally resulting in the deaths of more Americans than died at Pearl Harbor… most of them civilians. ..."
OK so damn you are no
OK so damn you are no pacifist (I had actually figured that out) just pissed about Iraq and the...the..unmentionable subject....(NO. DON'T OPEN THE DOOR!!).
Old Blue is Great, isn't he?
Don't know if you've heard my Collapse of Empires meme...but here goes: Our actions are often seen in the light of WW2 and Pearl Harbor (no wonder our leaders and teachers themselves always paint them in that light) as well as never again a Munich, but that's an woefully incomplete history of the last 100 years.
In 1909 how much of the world was ruled by Empires great, middling, internal or decaying...and how many were gone just over a decade later. By 1924 Imperial Austro-Hungary, Tsarist Russia, the Ottoman Empire, Imperial Germany --think of the consequences for Central Europe and the Balkans alone because of those collapses. The British and French and Dutch and Portuguese Empires were still intact but strained. Imperial China was gone and in chaos. (China has been an internal Empire since before the birth of Christ).
By 1940 there were new Empires of Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and the USSR. And Imperial Japan was on the march in Asia.
By 1945 most of Europe and Asia lay in ruins. Left standing were the USSR, Great Britain (exhausted) and the most reluctant power splayed over much of the Globe - the USA. Which soon found itself the Head of a defensive Hegemonic Alliance or if you prefer leader of the Free World. Facing a huge USSR it' s in a nuclear standoff with for decades. Over the ensuing decades the two Superpowers are strained by maintaining huge peacetime standing armies and the ever present nuclear Sword of Damocles. They are also being strained by rebellions (Eastern Europe), proxy wars or in the case of the USA Korea and Vietnam, and a global ideological conflict. And over the next few years Britain, France and the tattered remnants of the Dutch and Portuguese Empires fall away.
And in 1989 exhausted by economic and ideological collapse the last Empire falls. Leaving a bewildered Hegemony tired but standing on the stage. Bewildered and staring about.
I don't want to get into the previous ideological battles of the past or value judgments. It's sterile (and were doing that now in the States anyway).
My point is this - when historians look back on these last one Hundred Years they may well call it the Century of Collapse, or the Global Collapse of Empires. Think about it. That's a period of catastrophe to match the Chinese warring states period. Empires whatever you can say about them are stable. The most stable of regimes.
It isn't that Empires rise and fall, of course they do. But all fall at once? 1914-1945 could well be called the world's warring states period.
And our actions need to be seen in the light of being drawn into a Global Warring States period. By 1945 it's us or Stalin. What were we to do?
History will be much more understanding of us, I think than for instance the BBC is now.
Peace
Elf: It sounds possibly like
Elf: It sounds possibly like I haave found mein führer, but I think Old Blue still leads the pack in real life communications. Its either now we push back, or never. You ever read about the old shield wall way of fighting, toe to toe? When they pushed at the right time, and the whole battle revolved around that moment of dicipline?
Peace back.
war bad. peace good.
war bad. peace good.
Diablo: War bad. period.
Diablo:
War bad.
period.
"Read what Peter Senge has
"Read what Peter Senge has to say about trim tabs."
This sounds like spam for some kind of diet program.
Add your comment