The ASG Report

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.

September 11, 2010 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 9:24pm | 51 Comments

I read through the Afghanistan Study Group's report last night and recommend you all do so as well because some really smart people contributed to it, and I applaud anyone who attempts to construct an alternative to the current troubled strategy. But the fact that Josh Foust absolutely demolishes pretty much everything the report says might highlight how very difficult it is to construct a strategy in Afghanistan that both makes sense in terms of U.S. interests and the reality on the ground. That does not mean, though, that people should not continue to try.

(In all seriousness, goodness gracious ... this post on Registan is the most clinical and devastating take-down of a policy paper I have ever read. It recalls Tony Judt's verdict on Kolakowski's "My Correct Views on Everything": "the most perfectly executed intellectual demolition in the history of political argument: no one who reads it will ever take E.P. Thompson seriously again." Reading Josh's post, I actually found myself embarassed for the authors of the ASG, many of whom are terribly intelligent and considerate scholars, such is the cold-blooded ferocity of Josh's criticism. If you are a think tank researcher who is not an expert on Afghanistan but are about to publish something on Afghanistan, I highly recommend you ask a smart Afghanistan expert like Josh or Christian Bleuer to read what you have written before you publish. Consider that free advice from a think tank researcher who does not consider himself any kind of "expert" on the peoples, languages or history of Afghanistan but who often publishes security-related commentary on the conflict there.)

Afghanistan

51 comments

Comment by Visitor on September 11, 2010 - 10:07pm

Let's rewind. 1) Why is the

Let's rewind.

1) Why is the US in Afghanistan? Because of Al Qaeda, to deny them an operating base. Right?
If Al Qaeda is in Yemen, North Africa, and South America why is Afghanistan so important?

2) What does Al Qaeda want? Americans out of there lands. Death to Zion. Right?
Not going to happen. The world is not going to turn its back on Israel. America is doing business in
the Middle East and not going away.

3) How does Al Qaeda get what it wants? Terrorism. Right?
You can not be everywhere at once. Terrorist has to right once. We have to be right all the time.

Conclusion: What the heck are we doing in Afghanistan? Swatting flies? This is a police action

Al Qaeda is not centralized.
America is not leaving.
America is not going to stop them unless you got total war on their people and that is not going to happen.

You can try to change Al Qaeda's mind on Israel and broker peace in the Middle East, but hell will freeze over before that happens.

Comment by Scott Wedman on September 11, 2010 - 10:16pm

Isn't this report kind of

Isn't this report kind of the least surprising disappointment ever? Once you saw the list of authors, you knew exactly what the recommendations would be (agree or disagree). . . .

Comment by Visitor on September 11, 2010 - 11:08pm

Shouldn't a policy paper be

Shouldn't a policy paper be read for it's content rather than because "really smart" people contributed to it.

Really smart people- when that's defined by doing well in political science, history or law classes- are very dangerous and have done serious harm to the US in recent years. Perhaps the term "really smart" should be left to describe people who fix or make things that work as desired.

Comment by Nichols on September 11, 2010 - 11:10pm

Foust runs a great blog and

Foust runs a great blog and is a very knowledgeable guy, but the trouble with him is his criticism is so ferocious and intensely personal that it nearly precludes moving the scholarship and the argument forward - which is, after all, the point of criticism in this context. I don't know him personally and my own work has never been the subject of one of his attacks (that's what they are), but I see no reason why Foust can't exert a little more self-control and offer the same criticism in a different tone, but I guess Foust will be Foust. People writing about Afghanistan should not have to run things past Foust before they publish.

Such an arrangement makes me think of getting shaken down at an ANP check point by ANP Officer Foust. He is a wonderful scholar and analyst, but he is not the portal to acceptable writing on Afghanistan. Such a thing does not and should not exist in any field. I find myself in agreement with the substance of his critiques more often than not, but he is not always correct.

Comment by Visitor on September 11, 2010 - 11:27pm

I disagree with the report's

I disagree with the report's contention that there are even two US vital interests in the region that would justify continued effort.

There are about 150,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan with another 200,000 odd civilian employees. Can anyone explain how this force would prevent a handful of jihadis in any Afghan province from plotting attacks on the west. ISAF can't prevent attacks on itself let alone stop people from planning.

The protection of Pakistani nuclear weapons is crucial but the options for continuing or improving their security have nothing to do with Afghanistan.

The only "vital" interests in Afghanistan are institutional and personnel. The war provides a venue to punch tickets, make profit and justify defense budgets. Senior Afghans share these goals which explains why "our" Afghans, who have received billions in support seem so incompetent when compared to the insurgents. Wali Karzai and his chums have no interest in ending the war...until they've squeezed every last dime they can out of the US.

A common error when discussing the US military in Afghanistan is the assumption that all those folks must be doing something good. On the contrary most US gov't personnel do nothing to defeat the Taliban. They provide no intelligence, cause no insurgent casualties and execute no activities that would reduce support for the insurgents. Through generally no fault of their own most simply consume rations and fuel while killing time. Even worse the logistics trains needed to keep them fed and cooled are a major source of enemy funding and supply. ISAF should be reduced in size as it expanded presence harms our goals of reducing the capacity of the insurgents and increasing the capacity and morale of "our" Afghans.

Comment by Visitor R on September 11, 2010 - 11:48pm

Any mention of Bacha Bazis?

Any mention of Bacha Bazis? That might explain a lot.

Comment by Yuks and Laughs on September 11, 2010 - 11:52pm

Just for clucks..... Think

Just for clucks.....

Think we can agree on.

Nine years is a long time and who is going to pay the bill? Foust?

Some thing to consider........ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETT39gPGCps&feature=related

Are we too fixated on the target?

Comment by God Loves, Man Hates (or the other way around) on September 11, 2010 - 11:58pm

If you like Dr. Foust so

If you like Dr. Foust so much, why don't you marry him--in California, well I guess DC too.

Comment by Man in the Arena on September 12, 2010 - 12:09am

Christian Bleuer and Foust

Christian Bleuer and Foust are two peas in a pod. They are critics but they mistake their place with men in the arena. You're a critic, know your place. You live in the clouds, not where the rubber meets the road.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Comment by ADTS on September 12, 2010 - 12:22am

However accurate and cutting

However accurate and cutting Foust's critiques may be, I find it hard to use the word "clinical" for a blog post that employs the phrase "hot tranny mess."

Call me old-fashioned, Victorian, Edwardian, prudish, what you will.

ADTS

Comment by ADTS on September 12, 2010 - 12:26am

@ Scott Wedman: Isn't it "to

@ Scott Wedman:

Isn't it "to a degree?" I'll agree tne doesn't expect the authors to be raging interventionists in Afghanistan. But *the degree* to which they fall along the spectrum between interventionist and isolationist with respect to Afghanistan - should that be the spectrum one wishes to construct - leaves room for curiosity, I'd contend.

ADTS

Comment by Hunter 6 on September 12, 2010 - 12:47am

I just breezed the

I just breezed the Afghanistan Study Report. I still owe it a deeper reading, but my cursory review leaves me really disappointed. Ever hear the quote, "Amateurs talk strategy, rank amateurs talk grand strategy, and professionals talk logistics."... this report is heavy on grand strategy and light on nuts and bolts.

Here are my issues with the report:

1) How realistic is the 1st point that we promote more decentralization authority at the expense of the national government? Karzai whether we like him or not is the president and he has shown so far that one thing he likes is... being president of Afghanistan! I want real solutions that work in the real world. If you ask me, this point is a little too "pie in the sky" and not enough reality.

2) There is no mention of improving property rights under the economic development section. Until an Afgani can take out a second mortgage on their home to finance their great business idea (this is called being an entrepreneur America) there will be only limited and halted economic development in the country. Think about it like this... remember the California Gold Rush? How many of those hundreds of thousand prospecters would have moved to California if they couldn't make a legal claim to a mine and its gold. Didn't the NYTs just write about the vast mineral wealth of Afghanistan? I haven't heard about the Khost Gold Rush yet, but I'm sure it would happen if a legal system existed in Afghanistan that protected people's right to property.

3) Buy poppy from Afghan farmers. Is that seriously a suggestion? It just doesn't work like that. Anyone with experience in drug enforcement will tell you that. Poppy growing needs to be eliminated from Afghanistan. As long as people grow poopy, drug dealers will profit, and the entire economy and legal system will be undermined by the drug economic-security complex.

Am I alone here? Was anyone else wholly underwhelmed by the report? The thing that kills me is that I really wanted to like it.

Comment by Visitor on September 12, 2010 - 2:07am

"hot tranny mess" is a

"hot tranny mess" is a common phrase in the gay community.

Comment by Joshua Fous on September 12, 2010 - 8:47am

I'll never turn down such

I'll never turn down such high praise from Exum, but I'd like to clarify something: I am not demanding, or even asking, that anyone run their Afghanistan research through me. That would be ludicrously arrogant. My point about expertise is, there are a lot of experts on Afghanistan DC that COULD have reviewed this report for the glaring errors I saw. For example, one of the report's primary authors, Steve Clemons, works at the New America Foundation, yet his boss, NAF President Steven Coll, who knows a great deal about the strategic and practical value of Afghanistan, doesn't show up in their list of signatories. Same with Peter Bergen, NAF's other major Afghanistan figure.

Now I don't agree with everything those two guys say, but they know a tremendous amount. Why did NAF's main American Security Scholar not consult his own colleagues who know more on the topic? Or did he, but they declined to endorse it? Both outcomes are worrying.

Just up the road is the Carnegie Endowment, where Gilles Dorronsoro and Ashley Tellis work—both of whom are brilliant, and could have spent an afternoon helping ASG gets its facts better. And because we have the Internets, other experts, who enjoy engaging the policy community, like William Maley, Thomas Barfield, David Katz, Nigel Allen, David Edwards, and Antonio Giustozzi are just an email away. Barnett Rubin actually works as a special advisor to the State Department—he'd be more than willing to offer constructive criticism.

These are guys with PhDs and well over a decade's experience studying Afghanistan. They respond to emails - most of them have answered me when I've asked for help in understanding something. There's no reason not to consult them, but I can't find any evidence that they were consulted—or, if some were, then there's no evidence their comments made it into the report. That, too, is worrying from an accuracy standpoint.

Anyway, my point is, Exum is right that this report should embarrass everyone who signed their names to it. But they shouldn't run to me for expertise - DC has a ton of it, waiting to be consulted. That they remain ignored even by groups that ostensibly study Afghanistan is a joke—a sick joke, and utterly typical of how "thinking" works in that town.

Comment by Rabi'a al-Adiwyya on September 12, 2010 - 9:00am

hai guyz. jus' thought i'd

hai guyz.
jus' thought i'd give you a heads up.
INCOMING
"Iain Overton, editor of The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, tells Declassified that his organization has teamed up with media organizations—including major television networks and one or more American media outlets—in an unspecified number of countries to produce a set of documentaries and stories based on the cache of Iraq War documents in the possession of WikiLeaks. As happened with a similar WikiLeaks collection of tens of thousands of U.S. military field reports on the Afghan war, the unidentified media organizations involved with the London group in the Iraq documents project will all be releasing their stories on the same day, which Overton says would be several weeks from now. He declined to identify any of the media organizations participating in the project."

First the collateral murder video was released April 5, then then the Afghan document dump on July 26. Assange has said he spaces his revelations to prevent burnout. The next instantiation might come 12 weeks after July 26…..late October….right before elections.
The methdology is the same– several media outlets have had the data for months independently preparing stories extracted from the massive data– supposedly 3x the amount of Afghan theater data.
And they will release it on the same day.
I imagine the choice of outlets is multinational, like the choice of der Speigel, the Guardian, and the NYT for the afghan docs. i think Assange has changed strategy because the raw data was not largely read by citizens, allowing detractors to frame the data as burning afghan collaborators. People are lazy and don’t read for themselves. that won’t happen this time. It will be ON TEEVEE.
;)

Comment by Visitor on September 12, 2010 - 11:05am

"Until an Afgani can take

"Until an Afgani can take out a second mortgage on their home to finance their great business idea (this is called being an entrepreneur America)"

LOL, is that what people did with those HELOCs? I thought they all upgraded their kitchens and bought boats and shiny new cars, then defaulted on their mortgages when their loan went deep underwater. If every hovel in Afghanistan does not have granite countertops and stainless steel appliances, then the terrorists have won...

Comment by Visitor on September 12, 2010 - 11:09am

Oh Lord, the authors of the

Oh Lord, the authors of the ASG report are almost all academic theoreticians, and we're surprised when they generate a product that is completely useless and detached from reality? "Academics write something utterly impractical that only other academics read" is the ultimate dog bits man story.

Comment by gd on September 12, 2010 - 11:32am

Here's a most valid

Here's a most valid criticism by Josha Foust

"ASG actually argues that poverty causes terrorism. I’m serious, they actually say “endemic poverty has made some elements of the population susceptible to Taliban overtures. Moreover, failed and destitute states frequently become incubators for terrorism, drug and human trafficking, and other illicit activities.” Of course, the role of a broken government or out-of-control drone strikes and special forces groups has no role to play. And luckily, wealthy countries like Saudi Arabia never promote terrorism, drug and human trafficking, and other illicit activities. Further, we should economically develop ALL countries, just on the off chance that they might make drug smuggling terrorists."

To expand: the key motivational factors for Al Qaeda are linked to two factors: the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (including the lopsided U.S. support for Israel's South African-style apartheid state) and the special relationships between dictator states in the Middle East and West. This is according to their own press releases - of course, the goal is to be the new Saladin of the Middle East - but gosh, I don't think Saladin was known for slaughtering helpless women and children in terrorist assaults. In fact, historically speaking, it was the Crusaders that behaved in that way - making OBL more of a Crusader than a Saladin.

"Here’s another thought: we cannot develop our own economy. Despite years of malaise, our government is struggling to make the economy function and reduce unemployment. We cannot get it right in a country and economy and region we understand—why should we expect to get it right in Afghanistan? Why should we have any expectations that we can be more effective there than we are here? The Afghanistan Study Group doesn’t seem to have thought of that. That they think there are no efforts to do things like microfinance and infrastructure development? I can’t say. This stuff isn’t very hard to find."

What do remote villages in Afghanistan need, development-wise? Water pumps, which create agricultural jobs - and some lighting would be nice, too. What remote power system is best for that situation? Robust solar panels and small battery racks - all it takes is one trained individual to operate and maintain such village-scale technology - and solar panels don't require fuel imports.

Instead, the two energy programs for Afghans - one from McChrystal, one from State - were bad jokes. Small generators (which need scarce fuel) or giant white elephant power plants - like the Black & Veatch one in Kabul?

Conclusions gleaned from three independent investigations into U.S.-financed reconstruction of the Afghan electricity sector, as well as IPS interviews with Afghan government officials and contractors, suggest that the power plant - which will cost taxpayers almost three times as much as comparable projects - may never be used.

If you screw up the economic restructuring so badly - largely by just dumping cash in the pockets of politically connected U.S. engineering firms (all those Iraq/Afghanistan engineering firms have local water contracts, etc. in U.S. cities) - then why do you think you're going to win the support of the population?

It gets even worse when you look at the Bank of Kabul and Karzai's elite circle - they're smuggling opium and heroin, stealing U.S. aid packages, and shipping the cash off to Dubai so that if things go really sour, they can flee the country. Those are our allies now?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7984515/Kabul-Bank-gets-Afghan-bail-out.html

"As the biggest loan-providing institution we, the Central Bank, are ready to provide loans to the Kabul Bank." The US Treasury department has called the crisis an "Afghan issue" and said no American taxpayers' money would be used. . . Reports said the bank was riddled with off-the-books loans to political cronies. It has also lost heavily in Dubai's property collapse.

The U.S. taxpayer money was what was in those banks! Furthemore, it seems that the U.S. Treasury used the Afghan Central Bank as a cut-out so it could say that no funds went directly to the Bank of Kabul. Tricky little con artists..

Mahmoud Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a major shareholder in beleaguered Kabul Bank called on Thursday for intervention by the United States to head off a financial meltdown. “America should do something,” said Karzai in a telephone interview, suggesting that the U.S. Treasury Department guarantee the funds of Kabul Bank’s clients,

It's like it is Vietnam in the mid 1960s, and we "don't want to change horses in midstream" - but when are they going to figure out that Karzai's regime is corrupt and incapable of governing the country? When will they insist on real elections, instead of the staged garbage run by Karzai's thugs? There seems little chance that Karzai will ever again be viewed as a legitimate leader of Afghanistan, in any case.

Comment by Visitor @11:51 AM on September 12, 2010 - 11:52am

Thanks for this informative

Thanks for this informative blog.

I always wondered how we would define victory on our global war on terrorism. I learned today it will be when Afghans share in the rights we short sightedly take for granted in our great land. No not something trivial like personal liberties but that most sacred of rights - property rights. من هو جون جالت؟

And one dares to speculate maybe as well the right to use the proceeds from that second mortgage to buy a Camarro. Suddenly, the strategic genius of the bail-out and government take over of General Motors becomes much clearer.

ًWho says we don't have a comprehensive plan for Endsieg? And without once having to resort to the WuWa our scientists and think tank analysts are developing right now under our wise and benevolent leadership.

Comment by Chris on September 12, 2010 - 12:51pm

I say we HALO qualify Dr.

I say we HALO qualify Dr. Josh Foust and drop him in the middle of Afghanistan, so we can ALL pull out, while he goes in and does his magic--he's FABULOUS!

Comment by Visitor on September 12, 2010 - 1:02pm

And Ex brings the ABU in

And Ex brings the ABU in FabuLOUS!

Comment by Visitor on September 12, 2010 - 1:17pm

On takedowns, heres an

On takedowns, heres an article made me so annoyed, I had to register at Politico to answer...

http://www.politico.com/rogersimon/ "Everybodys wrong about bookburning".

My reply:
"Sir, there are several faulty lines of reasoning in this article. I had to register to comment since I find Politico an otherwise excellent site.

The first is that violence in Afghanistan/ Iraq against western countries armies and diplomats equals terrorism. Terrorism is by definition the use of randomly spread violence against civilians, something you may have noticed is happening in Pakistan and Iraq far more frequently than in Afghanistan. Attacks against foreign armed forces are called acts of war, unless you wish to make a mockery of the term terrorist.

Second, the difference between a public Koran burning being done when you know you are in Al Jazeeras news-frame and building a intra-faith communitycenter with a prayer-room for muslims is just ridicolous not to notice. One is an act of hatred, a raised middle finger, an invitation to a fight broadcast across the whole world, with the US armed forces as the human shields of the Pamela Geller/Burn the Koran Day folks.. The other is a relatively ecumenical project, supported by prominent religous folks of all sides in New York.

Third, the general did not interfer with Joneses amendment rights, he simply used his to point out the outcome of the story. Again, this was playing 24/7 on Asian news-cycle at that point. Watched Al Jazeera arabic recently? It is a fact of life that the US army is trying to *make a army of 150 000 afghan muslims*, I repeat 150 000 afghan muslims, who will be working next to US personel, carrying live rifles. I think the good general was well within his right of free speech for pointing this somewhat out.

I could carry on. But to sum it up: Your Mosque vs. Sacrilege image seems to me dead wrong. Unless you buy the point that muslims defile the grounds of Manhattan, in wich case you have a big pogrom coming down to make happen. From a military pov, this is disaster."

Comment by courtneyme109 on September 12, 2010 - 2:30pm

The failure to include Great

The failure to include Great Satan's military cats makes the Afghan Unassing Consortium a curious collective of academics (yay), biz peeps, ex gov officials, policy practitioners, journalistical careerists and wishful thinkers pimpin' a recipe for a strategic disaster.

Splitting as advocated would totally fire up caliphaters around the world - perception that another super power suffered defeat would xform sympathizers into actualizers.

As das Boot beaudaciously opines, their movement would be "...turbocharged across the world. The Taliban would take over much of southern Afghanistan and advance on Kabul, sparking a terrible civil war with the forces that once belonged to the Northern Alliance.

"...In Pakistan Islamist extremists, including the Pakistan Taliban, will be spurred in their own drive on Islamabad. The US would have to deal with a strategic disaster the likes of which we have not seen since the fall of South Vietnam."

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/node/22912

Comment by Elf says the war just changed on September 12, 2010 - 3:12pm

And anything beyond London

And anything beyond London and Hamburg is now as relevant as the Fulda Gap.

Where the Muslims who hit us came from. The most important person on this thread today is: Rabi'a al-Adiwyya.

Congrats Rabbit. You just hit the big time. Courtesy of a President and Mayor (Bloomberg) who have just sent a message to our enemies: We submit to Islam.

Comment by The people we're fighting on September 12, 2010 - 3:26pm

And the people who killed us

And the people who killed us here - are the outcasts of the real Islamic world. If Rauf tried his Fitna in Egypt for instance, he knows the fate that awaits him. That's why the Muslim Brotherhood fled Syria for Hamburg, and why so many Jihadi ended up in London or the USA. To save themselves. Still, they we're dwelling amongst those they cannot take as friend except to convert, and dwelling a Muslim country. That had to change. And they need their own sanctified by victory Holy Place. The Hijaz is not safe for them.

So they have to convert us, or more important make us submit to Islam: Aslim Taslim. Submit to Islam (or else).

9/11 and all the rest = or else. They back it up.

It's as irrelevant to this discussion how Islam is practiced in the Muslim world as the current scores of Manchester United or the Pakistani Cricket Team (actually that might be more relevant).

We are fighting Western and Westernized Takfiri. It's they that are listening, not some (paid) rioter in Kabul.

And what they heard from Bloomberg and Obama was: we submit. Just don't bomb us. We, the rulers of New York (site of the planned Mosque, with the new GZ framing nicely as minarets) on behalf of our people, submit.

Comment by President and Mayor Dhimmni on September 12, 2010 - 3:33pm

Obama: the United States is

Obama: the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam.

Takfiri Translation: We do not wish longer to dwell in the House of War (Dar al-Harb). We wish to Dwell in the House of Peace - Dar al-Islam.

Bloomberg: how can I grovel more? Build it, Build it here. Please...? We'll finance it OK? (watch!!).

The very instant ground is broken a mighty swelling song of praise and victory will be heard around the world. No doubt with some tremulous nervous chiming in by Progressives, who will make whimpering noises about "Religious Liberty".

Who will have won at that point will be unmistakable. And the only way we'll get our Freedom back is to fight for it. Oh and there's one more thing...

Comment by What we will have to do... on September 12, 2010 - 3:36pm

The Worst we Can. Or it's

The Worst we Can. Or it's us...so "Visitor" (hi Fnord)...

"..Your Mosque vs. Sacrilege image seems to me dead wrong. Unless you buy the point that muslims defile the grounds of Manhattan, in wich case you have a big pogrom coming down to make happen. From a military pov, this is disaster."

"in wich case you have a big pogrom coming down to make happen."

Yes. But not in Manhattan. From Sea to Shining Sea. It is now them or us. The fact that they are innocent is irrelevant, the fact that we are fighting Takfiri expelled from Islam is Irrelevant. All that is relevant: Them.Or.Us.

Thank your elected officials. They've now damned you.

Comment by Fnord on September 12, 2010 - 4:48pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnY63APl_6c

Ah, Foetus...
"There must be some kind of romace in being dumb"

Comment by Scott Wedman on September 13, 2010 - 9:59am

@ ADTS: When you saw the

@ ADTS: When you saw the list of authors, you really didn't know exactly what the report was going to say? You are a sharp guy. But this is a personal preference thing on my part - I'd rather read work and reports when I can't just pigeonhole the conclusion based on the name at the top of the report. Note, I'm not saying that you disagree, just that I recognize that this is my own personal preference.

Comment by ADTS on September 13, 2010 - 11:24am

Scott: Thanks for the

Scott:

Thanks for the compliment.

I guess I take issue with the word "exactly." Like I said, I didn't expect them to be interventionist, but the balance struck between interventionist (eg, the light footprint option) versus isolationist (eg, complete withdrawal) would seem to me to be difficult to know a priori.

ADTS

Comment by Visitor on September 13, 2010 - 2:35pm

"Attacks against foreign

"Attacks against foreign armed forces are called acts of war, unless you wish to make a mockery of the term terrorist."

Hmmmm. So guys who refuse to wear uniforms and who violate every law and custom of land warfare are not "terrorists" if they do so in order to attack soldiers? Calling those scum soldiers rather than terrorists makes a mockery of the term soldier.

"I don't think Saladin was known for slaughtering helpless women and children in terrorist assaults. In fact, historically speaking, it was the Crusaders that behaved in that way - making OBL more of a Crusader than a Saladin."

Saladin is "not known" for this because our glorious new science of history only admits knowledge of atrocities committed by white folk. Brown-on-white or brown-on-brown atrocities, such as Saladin's execution of prisoners, are committed to the memory hole or, perversely, blamed on whites. Our glorious new science of history also asserts that the Progressive moral standards of 2010 must be relentlessly applied throughout history so that we can feel superior to the benighted savages who lived in the past, thus illustrating the inevitable progress towards enlightenment that adherence to Leftist ideology has permitted us. The custom of medieval warfare was that a besieged city that refused to surrender, and was successfully stormed, could be subjected to unlimited slaughter, pillage, rape, and enslavement. If the city surrendered, they were spared this -- otherwise, why would any city ever surrender? Muslims and Christians alike followed this custom, but all we ever hear about, ad infinitum ad nauseam, is Richard the Lionheart at Jerusalem. Who today knows of Sultan Baybars massacre of Christians at Jaffa? But it is nice to see that GD's abuse of history for ideological purposes continues unabated. The terrifying thing is that many people who have drunk the same Kool Aid as GD have responsible policy positions -- those who do not understand the past, control the present, and lead us downward into a dark future.

Comment by Scott Wedman on September 13, 2010 - 3:08pm

@ ADTS: I see your point,

@ ADTS: I see your point, but I think if you look at the writings of that community of scholars over the last 2 years, the trend is pretty clear.

Comment by Visitor on December 2, 2010 - 11:06am

Great website...and cool

Great website...and cool article man...thanx for the great post...keep on posting such articles... Resources like the one you mentioned here will be very useful to me! I will post a link to this page on my blog. I am sure my visitors will find that very useful.
cuban cigars | cohiba cigars

Comment by Jeron on December 16, 2010 - 3:51am

Thanks for sharing this post.

Thanks for sharing this post. This is a very helpful and informative material like testking 220-701. Good post and keep it up. Websites are always helpful in one way or the other, that’s cool stuff, anyways, a good way to get started to renovate your dreams testking 70-649 into the world of reality.I will write more in detail after my testking 70-642 and testking 70-646 very soon. Thanks!

Comment by Peeng on December 30, 2010 - 1:04pm

You can embed an image in

You can embed an image in your Textile document by surrounding fabric stores and tea towels with exclamation marks.

Comment by Dargon on December 31, 2010 - 1:43pm

I am Dargon and I have read

I am Dargon and I have read your site in a very deep and I would like to appreciate you on this brilliant effort. You have provided some thing so much different that I can't have words for thanks.
linen fabric curtains

Comment by Visitor on February 22, 2011 - 12:55am

Thank you for sharing this

Thank you for sharing this post. This is a very useful and informative materials. Good post and keep it. Websites are always helpful like 70-685 and 70-270 in one way or with 642-446 and 1Y0-A17 On the other hand, this is amazing stuff, in any case, this is a good way to begin updating your dreams in the world of reality.

Comment by AlexRose on March 8, 2011 - 2:41am

Its looking nice regarding

Its looking nice regarding anatomy.
Security Camera System

Comment by Fraxel Melbourne on March 28, 2011 - 7:26am

Brilliantly written article!I

Brilliantly written article!I am satisfied by the material which you have on this weblog. It exhibits how very well you grasp this topic.Will be back often to check up on new stuff you post!

Fraxel Melbourne

Comment by desarrollo personal on April 9, 2011 - 2:32pm

I enjoyed reading your nice

I enjoyed reading your nice blog. I see you offer priceless info. Stumbled into this blog by chance but I’m sure glad I clicked on that link. You definitely answered all the questions I’ve been dying to answer for some time now. Will definitely come back for more of this.

desarrollo personal

Comment by JamesD on April 19, 2011 - 6:41am

. It exhibits how very well

. It exhibits how very well you grasp this topic.Will be back often to check up on new stuff you post!
Muslim Matrimonials | Asp.Net Ajax Chat | CCTV Cameras UK | Access Health Care

Comment by Aciclovir on June 10, 2011 - 5:08pm

vachaudw allopurinol prix

vachaudw allopurinol prix becrocria vente digoxin ttorworian achat innopran xl aterthwastl zyvox sans ordonnance
ittera.

Comment by buybestnike on June 13, 2011 - 4:37am

some don't miss, often in the

some don't miss, often in the Ming dynasty in night when crashing incoming, sting to the bottom of the softest place, unable to struggle. Not happiness, but still some backward greedy feelings rather than happiness;

Comment by publisher 2010 download on June 21, 2011 - 10:59pm