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.
From the Dept. of Horrible Message Discipline
Here's the VPOTUS on Meet the Press yesterday:
MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about Afghanistan. The president's review released this week, you've been described in The New York Times as "Obama's in-house pessimist on Afghanistan." Are we winning or losing in Afghanistan?
VICE PRES. BIDEN: Let me separate this out, remind everybody what our goal is. Our overarching goal and our rationale for being there is to defeat and--to dismantle, ultimately defeat al-Qaeda, residing--central al-Qaeda residing in the Fatah, the western regions of the mountains of, of Pakistan. Secondly, to make sure that terrorists do not, in fact, bring down the Pakistani government, which is a nuclear power. Toward that end, we think it's important that there be stability in Afghanistan so that al-Qaeda cannot re-establish it as a base from which to attack the United States of America. With regard to our efforts to degrade al-Qaeda, we're making great progress. The so-called C.T., that is counterterrorism, the use of special forces and the like to go after individuals who make up the leadership of al-Qaeda and of the Taliban. On the issue of counterinsurgency, that is where we clear, hold and build and transfer, we're making progress not as rapidly as we are on the other front. President's been frank to say that in his release, pointing out that we need two things that we're working on very hard and we're making some progress: one, Pakistan and safe havens; and two, governance in Afghanistan.
MR. GREGORY: All of this is so complicated.
VICE PRES. BIDEN: It is.
MR. GREGORY: After 10 years, Mr. Vice President, can't you just say straight whether we're winning of losing?
VICE PRES. BIDEN: Well...
MR. GREGORY: Don't the American people deserve to know something about where we stand?
VICE PRES. BIDEN: Well, no--they--I, I--the one thing I've never been accused of is not being straight. They are--we are making progress.
MR. GREGORY: Yeah...
VICE PRES. BIDEN: Are we making sufficient progress fast enough? The answer remains to be seen. Here's what we said. We said we were going to--we--after seven years of neglect of an Afghan policy when we came to office, we had to sit down. I went off to Afghanistan at the president's request, came back with a recommendation, and said we have to clarify our objectives and then decide what forces we need in order to sustain the possibility of making sure we accomplish those objectives. We've done that. We said we'd sit down in December and make--and look at it and review the progress we're making. We were honest with the American people, we're making progress in all fronts, more in some areas than in others. We are going to, come July, begin to draw down American forces and transfer responsibility to the...
MR. GREGORY: Will that be a token amount of soldiers? Will it be a couple of thousand troops and no more?
VICE PRES. BIDEN: No. Well, well--it, it will not be a token amount, but the degree to which we draw down--if I can make an analogy to Iran--I mean, excuse me, to, to Iraq, which I've been put in charge of.
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
VICE PRES. BIDEN: What happened there? We signed, three years ago, an agreement with the Iraqis saying that what we're going to do is, two summers ago we're going to draw all combat troops out of the cities, populated areas. Then we said, our administration, we're going to draw 100,000 troops out the next summer. And we're going to be totally out. In the meantime, we're going to help build a government, we're going to transfer responsibility, and we're going to be gone. That's exactly what we did at the recent Lisbon conference, the NATO conference, where we said, "We're starting this process, just like we did in Iraq. We're starting it in July of 2011, and we're going to be totally out of there come hell or high water by 2014."
This is just horrible, horrible message discipline. It became immediately clear to pretty much everyone but a few folks who think of only winning another election in 2012 that the president's 1 December 2009 declaration that U.S. troops would begin a withdrawal from Afghanistan in July 2011 was a terrible mistake: the message may have reassured a domestic audience, but it was exactly the wrong thing to tell the Taliban, the Pakistanis, and the Afghan people. You need to be telling the latter audiences, for a wide variety of reasons, that U.S. support for Afghanistan will be enduring. You are simply not going to make any progress on the president's policy aims if everyone in Afghanistan and Pakistan thinks you are headed for the exits. It is clear the VPOTUS is not a fan of the president's current strategy, and that's fine, but he actively undermines what the president and troops and diplomats on the ground are trying to do when he says this kind of stuff, which, oh, by the way, is false. Biden's completely wrong about what was agreed upon at Lisbon, and if he honestly believes that last sentence I highlighted, he needs to invest in a new pair of hip waders.
The sad thing is, this is not, of course, the first time the VPOTUS has exercised shockingly poor judgement, failing to understand how an audience outside his base might interpret his words or actions:
the message may have
The problem, Andrew, is not message discipline. I submit that's impossible to simultaneously assure the domestic audience that our commitment in Afghanistan will not be enduring while at the same time assuring the Afghans, Taliban and Pakistanis that it will be. Maybe that kind of subterfuge was possible 30 or 40 years ago, but it is not in today's global media environment.
The is not a messaging problem, but highlights that the current strategy has serious problems and internal contradictions. A strategy which relies on the the promise of an unending military commitment to fight an internal war in another "nation" is just plain dumb. No one really believes our commitment will be enduring. That you would criticize the VP for stating the obvious and choosing the domestic audience over the foreign audience says a lot.
So you propose sending
So you propose sending different messages to different people - being truthful to some and lying to others?
Just how long do you think that can be sustained in the information age? Haven't we been down this IO hole before?
Thanks for the Fox News like
Thanks for the Fox News like attack on Biden. Instead of staying on message Andrew why don't we get real & talk about a what a utter-fucking waste of treasure & lives Afghanistan has been.
America's infrastructure is a rotting hull & the country is suffering massive unemployment that will only continue to worsen if we listen to the drumbeat for more war from fools such as yourself. I ain't no Fortunate Son like you Andrew who obtained his position via Daddy's connections. What I worry about is restoring America's Middle Class over some shit-box like Afghanistan.
I have enough sense to know 911 was a drop in the bucket for the U.S. Yes, we took hit but we're still standing & not under imminent threat like you & your ilk claim. The threat is in Corporate America & Military Industrial Complex that you cheerleader for Andrew.
Some folks are born made to wave the flag
Ooh, they're red, white and blue
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief"
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no
Yeah!
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh
But when the taxman comes to the door
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no
Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord
And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son, no no no
(J. Fogerty) Some folks are
(J. Fogerty)
Some folks are born made to wave the flag
Ooh, they're red, white and blue
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief"
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no
Yeah!
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh
But when the taxman comes to the door
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no
Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord
And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son, no no no
But the support is NOT
But the support is NOT "enduring". And they know it. The world knows it. The US knows it. Nor should it be "enduring". I say let us face the truth.....not more self deceiving "message discipline."
Gang, Biden was actually
Gang, Biden was actually WRONG. So not only was he not reading from the same sheet of music, he was spreading false information!
Andrew, the VP coordinates
Andrew, the VP coordinates Afghan and Iraq strategy. His words are taken to be "policy." Many in the State Department and Pentagon are confused by these comments and wondering if US policy has changed. If even they are confused about US policy, shouldn't the rest of us be too?
The VP needs to clarify that he supports the removal of all ISAF "combat troops" in 2014, not combat enablers [trainers, advisors, air, medical, maintenance, intelligence, special forces], and that the US will contribute in a major way to pay for the ANSF over the long term, even while encouraging other countries to also contribute.
The ANSF is likely to cost about $10 billion/year at steady state. Unless long term ANSF funding and support is likely, why would Pakistan cooperate and why would the Taliban negotiate?
What I find absurd is the
What I find absurd is the concept that any enduring commitment to Afghanistan must include significant combat forces. The all-or-nothing mentality and the failure to see where this is all supposed to go is amazing in its simplicity.
You are correct; we never said that in Lisbon. The VP is reaching for that base that cries out that the war has caused our economic issues, seeking something easy to blame it on. Witness the Doonesbury character above who likes to reprint the lyrics of songs we all know rather than say anything of substance that does not require name-calling. If there was ever any question, Biden just secured his vote in 2012.
Remember that you make enough sense to piss him off.
Do they have silver spoons in Tennessee? I mean, other than in Al Gore's dining room? Just an aside. I really never knew that you were the product of a privileged class. I thought you were plucked from relative obscurity by John Nagle. Huh. Learn something new every day.
Yeah, we all just want to know when we an stop feeling bad and confused. We all want to get back to that magical place where we can really just focus on Dancing with the Stars so that our frustrations can be, once again, transient and inconsequential.
PS... Steve Dallas has your sheet of music.
Does Biden know that he is,
Does Biden know that he is, well, the actual VICE PRESIDENT of the United States?
This has nothing to do with whether the Administration's policies are good or not. It has everything to do with the demeanor of a professional and with professionalism.
In those sorts of positions, you aren't supposed to "wing it" on national television.
No disrespect to the vice president intended in my above comments but we are part of a international coalition. Other countries have their troops in Afghanistan. What does it say about the administration that he doesn't quite know what the Lisbon agreement is all about?
Sorry folks, this is not about the goodness or badness of strategy. It's entirely about showing the world that you can be taken seriously, that you mean what you say, and that you will follow through on promises made.
For once, I feel a certain sympathy for the President, but then, he chose the man for VP. Still sympathetic, though.
Jeez. Zip it already, peoples of the administration!
:)
Andrew, Let's review: VP
Andrew,
Let's review:
VP Biden and President Obama are taking credit for fulfilling their promise to "end the war in Iraq." This is how I most people are interpreting Biden's latest comments.
Consider what VP Biden said exactly two years ago:
He is only "wrong" on Afghanistan if you take him literally.
Regardless, the criticism about messaging still stands.
Another quick point: I
Another quick point:
I frequently read on progressive blogs that the foreign aid budget is small percentage of the overall budget. This is, again frequently, followed by the point that the American people think they are spending far more money on foreign aid than is budgeted.
As we transition our mission in Afghanistan, the money spent on security forces that (in the rosiest scenario, admittedly) may help prevent Afghanistan from becoming a toy between the regional powers and a ready home for transnational terrorist groups. What you have after the transition, then, is foreign aid intended to help those that can't defend themselves from outside predators. This, in turn, helps the US because the predators can't be turned loose on the US as easily.
I'm not saying I agree with all of the above, but that's the general theory, right? Progressives on the one hand complain about not spending enough money on civilian foreign aid but then they complain about this specific instance. It won't always be primarily a military mission, will it?
I'm not saying that I agree with the administration's policies but how am I suppose to take the progressive vision seriously when you don't want us there as a military force, you don't want us to train Afghan forces to protect the people, and then, inevitably, some of you will complain that it is our fault that we abandoned the Afghans when the inevitable happens and there is further bloodshed.
I don't get you people. If you want us to leave immediately, okay, but don't play both sides of the card and then blame the United States for everything bad that happens in the world. Either we are imperfectly involved in one way or another - or we are not. If we are not - then sometimes good things will happen and sometimes bad things will happen. We live in reality, not a Utopian dreamworld.
Wow. I really cannot right
Wow. I really cannot right for sh!t, can I?
Well, I'm not a progressive so I get confused easily by what I read. It's either that or I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed....
Old blue and Madhu welcome
Old blue and Madhu welcome back. And Happy Holidays.
AM - what should the message be? What's the plan you are referring to?
what makes you think Biden knows?
Happy Holidays to all.
HH back at you, elf. And
HH back at you, elf. And right = write. Of course :)
What you've got here is the
What you've got here is the rare politician who's uncomfortable with blatantly lying. The vice president won't do it; presumably the president knew this when he asked Mr. Biden to be his running mate. Would that more politicians were like Biden. One might also consider that Obama may not have been elected without Biden as his running mate. One might further consider that it was Mr. Obama that came up with the 2011 deadline, not Mr. Biden. 2014? Some of us recall that 2014 began showing up in utterances from various military sources, as well as those unofficial outlets such as this blog, that serve as mouthpieces, and then we heard about a NATO summit.
It's very exciting that NATO had a Lisbon summit where a lot of things were agreed upon, among them references to 2104 in Afghanistan and some other neat stuff. Curiously, however, unless I missed it, the president has never reported what some might view as a long-term open-ended commitment to the American people. I'll bet most Americans kind of think big-time war in Afghanistan is going to go away fairly soon. The way it works in the United States is that a president and/or his emissaries may very well have a fine time cutting deals over fine wine and food with notables in other nations, but then have to come back and close the deal with the American people. I guess I missed that presidential address, the one that essentially said he was only kidding about 2011. The American people don't care anything about NATO or its summits. They want to get their war news from their own elected officials, not from NATO communiques.
Gotta love NATO. When reviewing the overall NATO commitment to Afghanistan, one is reminded of Stalin's question: "How many divisions does the Pope have?" When we see significant European troop contingents in Afghanistan (other than the Brits, who now have good reason to regret having cast their lot with us), then NATO declarations might mean a little more.
Funny how COINdinistas dislike Joe Biden. Funny how COINdinistas love Max Boot.
Hey Publius, Fire.For.Effect.
Hey Publius,
Fire.For.Effect. And on target. Happy Holidays.
I thought Vice President
I thought Vice President Biden's Meet the Press appearance was generally lamentable, and not only or even primarily because of the passage quoted here.
Biden seemed at pains to assert his own primacy in several areas of foreign policy, as well as in the Obama administration's Congressional relations. This was unseemly and unhelpful, at best. At worst, it suggested conflicts within the administration as to who is driving the bus -- conflicts that the President either cannot or has not chosen to resolve. The thought of an administration repeating one of the most serious failings of its immediate and notably unsuccessful predecessor is unsettling.
With all that said, I'm surprised that AM's perspective is as insular as this post suggests. He, and as he suggests here nearly everyone he knows as well, is sure that bluff is the only way to succeed in Afghanistan. Always show resolve, never admit that the United States might start withdrawing from Afghanistan, never acknowledge that the war's length or cost or the state of the American economy have any influence on our determination to stay the course until the enemy gives up. Or dies of old age, whichever comes first. He is sure that the Obama administration's decision not to bluff is a terrible mistake, borne of mere electoral calculation. So is everyone he knows.
That a policy of bluff has inherent limitations when the other players can see one's cards is lost on him. Nor does he appear conscious that bluff -- with respect to Afghanistan, and even more with respect to Iraq -- was so often employed as a tactic by the last administration precisely because it was effective in domestic electoral politics. The contradiction involved in chiding the Vice President for breaching message discipline by affirming the course the President announced in December of last year flies right over his head.
One of the things the Vice President implied in his Meet the Press appearance was that the American military commitment in Afghanistan might not last forever, might in fact only last a few more years. I suppose it is possible to interpret this as a judgement on an American military leadership that has had custody of that commitment for nine years already. What AM thinks of such a judgement I cannot say, but I can guess.
Elf: Thank you, HH to you
Elf: Thank you, HH to you and yours.
Publius: Huh. Seriously?
Zathras: Listen to a Pakistani talk about why they have never taken our commitment to Afghanistan seriously. The Pakistanis have a pretty large Army, but not nearly as advanced. They devote many more troops to task than we do. So when they saw the small footprint, they questioned that we were actually there to do what we claimed. Add to that our national predilection for failing to see things through to completion. They weren't really sure exactly what we were up to, but they were pretty sure it wasn't to accomplish what we were saying out loud. We would have dedicated more resources, most certainly more troops.
Now, keep in mind that the only Afghan government that has ever recognized the Durand Line as the official border between Afghanistan and Pakistan was the Taliban. Oddly enough. Never mind that the Afghans treat the Durand Line as the defacto border (complete with Border Police and border posts). The current Afghan government, in fact, has avoided actually agreeing that the true border is the Durand Line. Do you know what the Afghans consider to be their actual historical boundary?
The Indus River. This was the traditional border of the Pashtuns.
Raise your hand if you knew that this is a Pakistani concern. Ever noticed how eager India is for Afghanistan to succeed in its current struggle? Ever notice how many times the Indian Embassy has been attacked in Kabul?
When the concept of Pakistan's strategic depth is discussed, everyone assumes that means that in the event of war with India, Pakistan would feel free to use Afghanistan as operational space. But a strong, stable Afghanistan that, in its heart, considers its rightful boundary to be the Indus is not only not operational maneuver space, but also a potential threat to the space they currently (nominally) hold. What makes Pakistan want a challenge to the Kashmir and the land west of the Indus?
So, if we are not there to do what we have stated in the past (or we are quitters... samey same to the Pakistanis), then what has Pakistan to gain by supporting us without hedging their bets? Now we have a clear indication sent to Pakistan that they have been right the whole time. They have to live in that neighborhood when we leave, and we show strong signs of not really caring what happens when we leave. The Vice President didn't even give any indication that we would still be assisting in any other ways. Just, "... come hell or high water..."
Uh, yeah. Great grasp of the region there, Joe. You too, Zathras.
U.S. support for Afghanistan
U.S. support for Afghanistan will be enduring...... yikes
Does that mean state welfare or the 51st state?
Truth comes in a lot of different forms. You have heard it from the Generals. McChrystal got canned for it. Behind closed doors and sometimes open doors people finally say what they mean. Just cause there is a road map, it does not mean that it is the game plan.
AQ are the guys we want and they are not worth a trillion dollars any day. Reality is, AQ knows they can sit back on their hindsides and get our risk averse leaders to bleed the treasury dry. It is not our leader's money and it gets votes to spend the money. In the end our leaders will not loose cause they are set for a comfortable retirement no matter if America wins or looses. They have a pretty good golden parachute. AQ gets points for every dollar spent on this war and so do our politicians.
Good example of risk aversion is homeland security and what they have done with airline screening. AQ farts and a new multi-million dollar plan is executed.
Does not matter what Biden says.
This war was over before it started. No one is going to sign-up for a ten plus year hitch, period. That is the problem with COIN, the book was not written with the people paying for it in mind. Remember, the Generals will never get the "right inputs" cause they can not create wealth. The military is good for coming up with a plan based on the parameters given, nothing else. The down fall of the military is the folks that do the planing know that their careers depends on field service, they all want that battle ribbon to look good. Otherwise it is back to zero tolerance and up or out. With that culture no one will take a risk to get the right inputs.
Time for CT. Biden is right.
Here is a different
Here is a different spin.....
Biden and Obama are professionals. Stuff does not get said with out reason.
If I had to make a guess, some one is testing the waters of public opinion.
Visitor @ 10:47pm is a "Steve
Visitor @ 10:47pm is a "Steve Dallas" sock puppet. He hoards cats in his head.
To Old Blue's comment
To Old Blue's comment upthread I respond with an expression of admiration for his humility. If I were simple enough to let someone from the Pakistani security services lead me around by the nose I'd be far too prideful to admit it, let alone advertise the fact on a board like this.
One of my fears about our military's engagement in southwest Asia, actually, is that some of our generals may approach the subject with the same gullibility Old Blue does. Do they sit down with their well-tailored Pakistani counterparts and shake their heads at America's lack of commitment to fighting Pakistan's eternal battle with India? Do they sympathize with the difficulty Pakistan's army and intelligence services have in keeping the terrorist groups they have sponsored on task, killing Indians and domestic political opponents instead of Pakistani civilians in large numbers, while dealing with American complaining about Taliban terrorists operating from Pakistani soil? Have American generals concluded that they must reassure their Pakistani counterparts of our friendship, perhaps by having American drones blow up various unpleasant people in the tribal areas who are more enemies of the Pakistani government than enemies of ours?
There are many ways of going native, but perhaps the easiest is to commit to engagement in an area of the world without a strong understanding of why the United States is there and what we need to do. Willy-nilly, such a commitment can come to reflect what would-be American clients want, and what they think we need to do on their behalf. Now, personally I think Gen. Petraeus at least is more sophisticated than that; he had too much experience dealing with two-faced Iraqis in uniformed to be gulled so easily by two-faced Pakistanis in uniform. I'm not positive about that, though, and I wonder whether some of his associates are equally strong-minded.
Frank Luntz writing your copy
Frank Luntz writing your copy these days? It's got that slick, trashy look, makes your stomach heave 'though your mind don't notice just how bad the sh*t is passing through.
Christmas is coming, this is
Christmas is coming, this is our first Christmas together after, I was a student without much money, but I want to send her a gift, give what is good?
Also for the gifts you trouble? http://www.tiffany-jewelers.com/ a variety of small accessories, beautiful jewelry, is the best choice to send his girlfriend! !
1. ring, representing love you to the heart, rather ordained for your love tiffany jewelers sale
2. necklace, on behalf of your tightly locked, I hope your mind only he, and no other of the opposite sex 3. bracelets, in addition to representatives of Circle around you, it also suggested that he could only love you alone 4. bracelet, representing bound to you forever 5. anklets, tie him on behalf of life, and tied the afterlife, I hope the next life but also with
Love red rose represents passion; yellow rose represents jealousy treasure the blessings and lovelorn; purple rose represents romantic love and precious unique; white rose represents pure and innocent heart of black rose represents the tender; orange-red rose of friendship and youthful beauty; blue rose represents the honest Kind.
Chocolate meaning:
Hazelnut Chocolate - loyalty, nuts, chocolate - Kerentiffany jewelers outlet
, rum chocolate - and you were drunk, milk chocolate - my honey
Campanula:
If you are a boy, a girl will give you wind chimes, then that means ... ... to break up. In fact, wind chimes also miss, miss the meaning. Do not give it away but the best wind chimes. Meaning is always very good, I myself can buy their own to hang in the air in the room being a kind of sentimental melancholy
Different colors represent the significance of the crystal:
Colorless crystals: on behalf of pure, selfless, can improve people's aura, get rid of distractions Purple Crystal: Representing romance, marriage, color, noble and yellow crystals: on behalf of Fortune, Fortune brown crystals: on behalf of sound, Aetna Green Crystal: on behalf of justice, the development of Phantom Crystal: Representing tiffany store
sources of revenue are, the cause of the white ghost Xing Crystal: on behalf of pure, red phantom crystal for spiritual: of career development, wealth prosperity blond: to the United States, Supreme Red hair crystal: a warm, lively and Huang Fajing: prosperous, flourishing black hair Crystal: Partial financial, helping the green hair Crystal: Well, good luck silver grain: wood Wang, Handicraft Crystal Pyramid: gathering energy, good fortune crystal water tank: the magic and the supernatural.
Christmas is coming, this is
Christmas is coming, this is our first Christmas together after, I was a student without much money, but I want to send her a gift, give what is good?
Also for the gifts you trouble? http://www.tiffany-jewelers.com/ a variety of small accessories, beautiful jewelry, is the best choice to send his girlfriend! !
1. ring, representing love you to the heart, rather ordained for your love tiffany jewelers sale
2. necklace, on behalf of your tightly locked, I hope your mind only he, and no other of the opposite sex 3. bracelets, in addition to representatives of Circle around you, it also suggested that he could only love you alone 4. bracelet, representing bound to you forever 5. anklets, tie him on behalf of life, and tied the afterlife, I hope the next life but also with
Love red rose represents passion; yellow rose represents jealousy treasure the blessings and lovelorn; purple rose represents romantic love and precious unique; white rose represents pure and innocent heart of black rose represents the tender; orange-red rose of friendship and youthful beauty; blue rose represents the honest Kind.
Chocolate meaning:
Hazelnut Chocolate - loyalty, nuts, chocolate - Kerentiffany jewelers outlet
, rum chocolate - and you were drunk, milk chocolate - my honey
Campanula:
If you are a boy, a girl will give you wind chimes, then that means ... ... to break up. In fact, wind chimes also miss, miss the meaning. Do not give it away but the best wind chimes. Meaning is always very good, I myself can buy their own to hang in the air in the room being a kind of sentimental melancholy
Different colors represent the significance of the crystal:
Colorless crystals: on behalf of pure, selfless, can improve people's aura, get rid of distractions Purple Crystal: Representing romance, marriage, color, noble and yellow crystals: on behalf of Fortune, Fortune brown crystals: on behalf of sound, Aetna Green Crystal: on behalf of justice, the development of Phantom Crystal: Representing tiffany store
sources of revenue are, the cause of the white ghost Xing Crystal: on behalf of pure, red phantom crystal for spiritual: of career development, wealth prosperity blond: to the United States, Supreme Red hair crystal: a warm, lively and Huang Fajing: prosperous, flourishing black hair Crystal: Partial financial, helping the green hair Crystal: Well, good luck silver grain: wood Wang, Handicraft Crystal Pyramid: gathering energy, good fortune crystal water tank: the magic and the supernatural.
Old Blue at 11:01... Cats in
Old Blue at 11:01...
Cats in my head? That is a good one, lol.
What do you call American foreign policy and the money we give countries? Exum is signning America up to support Afghanistan for how long? At what rate of spending? To get what in return?
Hope someone is projecting those costs out into the future.
If you use Israel as a model, the US has handed out foreign aid since its beginning. What do we get for the taxpayer's $3 Billion a year. More the same? You have to look at the total picture to put together an answer cause there is linkage to our support of Israel. The F16 sales to Saudi Arabia, Aid to Egypt (about a Billion a year and rising), Millions to Palistine with offers of immigration to the US, and F35 commitment to Israel. Is anyone in US government trying to stop the foreign aid spending? Not from were I sit, it only expands. Was foreign aid on the cut list that came out of the US deficit reduction committee? No. Were government pensions on the cut list? No. Was Social Security? Yes.
There is linkage to all the countries in the Afghan region. (India, Pakistan, all the little "stans" that American uses to bring the war to Afghanistan).
Pensions are not social security. McChrystal gets about $300,000 a year for the rest of his life, federal pension is a percent of historical salary. The Federal employee is available for retirement after 30 years of service, no matter what their age at retirement (a person that enters the system at 20 years of age, could get full pension at 50 years of age!). For a person that earned McChrystal's salary in the private sector, their SS pay out would be in the neighborhood of about $35,000/yr and would have to wait until they are 65-67 years of age to get it. There is a lot of financial benefit to improve your GS rating before retirement and you do that faster during war time if your working in the military, that is a known. The 1990's for the military was a dry hole, a lot of people were turned out before retirement age due to zero tolerance (remember tail hook?). Heck it is a fact McChrystal got a raise by getting fired ! Rangel, commited the crime of not paying federal taxes, is still hanging around Congress making his $174, 000/yr.
One week the federal government was releasing the results of the defict commision telling all American citizens of the sacrifice that will have to be made for the nation. Then the week after the government was off increasing the deficit again. Is that an action of rational thinking? They are the same people that are telling the American citizens that spending a trillion dollars and killing a bunch of America's children is a good idea ! More sacrifice for the good of the nation.
Guess other people have cats in their heads too. Eisenhower warned us of the military establishment. He also warned us that leaving troops in Europe would cause a dependence on US military aid. Did he see the future? We have two pillars of spending in the US. Social programs and military spending. Which one is going broke and which one is funded?
BTW.....The $3 billion we are slated to give Israel for the next ten years usually comes back to the US in the form of sales of US defence hardware. Israel says the F35 were not a gift, that is true. Israel will purchase the F35's with the hard earned US foreign aid dollars ! Why should Israel make peace when war pays so well !
One persons cats are another's facts.
Yep. Cats. Any rant of
Yep. Cats.
Any rant of evil cabals of ill-intentioned generals who wish to kill American youth to increase their pensions is clearly not based on rational thinking. Full stop. Perhaps you cannot understand someone else who would not willingly spend blood to increase their pleasure in their golden years, but while GEN McChrystal did not share your lifestyle, he did work very hard and survived many cuts to attain his rank. For that level of service, the Congress of the United States made certain promises.
Other promises were made to you. You deserve to get the money that you put in to Social Security back. You do not have the right (although you do have the gall) to accuse Federal employees of massive conspiracies to cause wars in order to secure better retirements. That's like believing that 9/11 was an internal plot and the arguments of birthers. Those folks point to "facts" as well.
Unkempt, hoarded cats coughing hairballs at a prodigious rate.
Zathras: There is a difference between listening and being led around by the nose. I did not work closely with Pakistanis, although I did teach a few. When they spoke, I listened because I wanted to understand why the Pakistanis tolerate/aid/abet Afghan insurgents while they pledge their support to our efforts in Afghanistan. Sometimes, as I think you know, there are differing priorities within a country. Different groups struggle for the influence to further their points of view. Pakistan has this, of course... in the extreme. We are not talking about setting foreign policy here. We are talking about a guy who is supposed to be helpful being decidedly unhelpful. The signal sent strengthens the military's viewpoint in Pakistan.
There are those in Pakistan who seek moderation, who understand the internal threat that radical groups pose when (apparently not if) they slip their leash. Their viewpoint is one of cooperation in this affair. They seek to build internal capacity, not hedge for influence in an abandoned Afghanistan. Yet there is a significant and powerful enough group who are hedging their bets that we are not serious, and that we will quit. As if some of the previous announcements weren't enough, we have just strengthened their position.
Our VP just told them that we will quit, "come hell or high water." No support for capacity building in the Afghan government, no nothing. Bye. Seeya. CT, hooah. First of all, that is not was the President has said, and it's not what was said in Lisbon. He's off message, and his flavor of off only exacerbates our problems and the challenges of those whom we would like to see gain influence in Pakistan. Apparently you're okay with that? I actually don't believe that you are. I think you are aware of the dissonance in Pakistani politics and the struggle between the military and civil powers.
You don't have to be led around by the nose to listen and to try to understand the motivations of others; to understand what they are concerned with and what scares them. It is helpful to do so. Not to pander to them, but to understand how what you say and what you do affects the decisions of others. I expect the VP to understand these motivations better than I do. He gets briefed, and he's supposed to be a smart guy surrounded by other smart guys. He didn't act like he had been listening in the briefings and smart is no good if you don't engage the brain before the mouth. It sounded like he was furthering his agenda, not supporting the President's.
I didnt think the President's
I didnt think the President's stated 18 month timeline was a serious mistake. In fact that deadline, along with the Biden plan, has been the only fresh strategic thinking presented in an otherwise dysfunctional strategy that is dominated and shaped by counterinsurgency operations.
gian
COL G: So that's what you
COL G: So that's what you mean by strategic thinking? Really? The "Biden plan" was not a plan, it was a dream. The only thing that makes it a plan is that we could actually attempt that course of action. That frees officers such as yourself from the responsibility to fight a war that you don't care for, but it's not a recipe for anything successful. In fact, it relies upon violating the sovereign space of a nominally allied country who is not particularly inclined... and will be less inclined with such a plan... to permit such action as the "Biden plan" contemplates on its soil.
I'm disappointed. Truly. "Fresh strategic thinking?" A reliance on some fantasy that Rambo is going to save us from all of this trouble and free the GPF to once more focus on the mythical Krasnovian threat at the NTC? Convenient, but neither fresh nor strategic.
You weren't there to experience the morale shot that the insurgents got from the 18 month time frame. You weren't there to hear our allies, some of them quite dedicated, express their frustration with the prospect of abandonment. These weren't corrupt officials who stood to lose money; they were hard-fighting patriots who stood to lose their lives and families. Afghanistan has them, you know.
Or maybe you don't. E-card, I guess. Well, if you were there and dedicated to success and the pronouncement made your job much more difficult, I doubt you'd be as appreciative.
To tell an insurgent that he just needs to hang on a bit longer is not a good thing to do except for the expedience of domestic politics. It pleases (some) people here, and a few hiding in the NWFP, but not the troops who have to do the work, nor the civilians who are trying to decide to get off the fence and commit to their struggling government instead of being cowed by those who our "black ops" helped to create. It tells the Pakistanis that they do need to hedge their bets by backing a horse who will recognize the Durand Line for them. It weakens the resolve of our allies in Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO. It's done, we live with it, but you are the only man who wears a uniform I've ever heard express that it was a good idea. Code Pink likes it a lot more than anyone with a uniform on in Asia. Many more of your colleagues who are engaged in this particular fight expressed frustration with the additional challenges it provided them in an already difficult fight. That's okay though, Sir. Don't listen to their E-cards, either. Your seat at West Point provides a much better view of reality in the Hindu Kush and your denial of theory and practice trumps any evidence to the contrary. Especially if you don't look for it and don't accept it when it is presented. Just continue to cite examples of poorly executed COIN as proof that it doesn't work, deny successful instances as attributable to any other factor, fail to recognize the Maoist model of insurgency in Afghanistan, quote the number of patrols you conducted in Baghdad as some measure of effectiveness and fete politicians who have made careers out of championing domestic social programming as "fresh strategic thinkers." All the while you will apparently be backing anyone who may get you back to planning CALFEX's so that we are ready when the Red Chinese Horde charges across the Fulda Gap, even if their "plan" is a lip-service Easy Button so ridiculous as to be a straw man. That seems to be working for you. It keeps your name out there as the "leading opponent" of COIN doctrine in the US Army.
There is no "Easy Button," Sir. You are aligning yourself with a politician who has repeatedly demonstrated himself to shoot from the hip (the VP) and diverge from message, in favor of his own, and lauding him as a "fresh strategic thinker." Well, I think that speaks for itself. The only ones who back the "Biden plan" are those for whom it suits a particular agenda. Those agendas vary from a desire return to fighting Krasnovians with laser beams, OC's and the occasional CALFEX to utilizing the savings for domestic social programs and burying our heads in the sand. They don't have anything to do with trying to accomplish a mission, contributing to establishing stability in Afghanistan and the region, providing for our national security (other than Social Security) or addressing the causes and conditions that spawned such movements as AQ and keep them alive.
Old Blue, You miss the point.
Old Blue,
You miss the point. It is about why America's troops are dieing. Where is the threat that justifies all this?
The Taliban are going to invade and take over the US? The tail is wagging the dog.
I know guys that have made so much money off this war that they can write a check big enough to spend it all......It was a home run.
Here is the first hint of the future cost of Afghanistan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR201012...
Let's start with the cost of maintaining Afghan security forces after they reach their planned goal by October - 171,000 in the military and 134,000 police. John Ferrari, deputy commander for programs for the NATO training mission in Afghanistan, told reporters last week that the estimate is that $6 billion per year would be needed to sustain that overall force.
According to the latest figures published by the CIA, the Afghan government takes in revenues of $1 billion a year and has expenditures of $3.3 billion. Today, that deficit is made up through contributions by other nations. But that figure does not include the costs of Afghanistan's military and police units. As Ferrari put it, "We procure all of their equipment. We sustain them. We pay for a lot of their training."
This year, for example, the United States is spending $9.2 billion on Afghan security forces and the administration has requested another $11.6 billion for the coming year, funds now tied up in Congress. About a third of that is for equipment - "about 80,000 vehicles, 175,000 radios and technical equipment, about 400,000 weapons and 146 different aircraft," according to Ferrari. All of that is expected to cost some $10 billion by the time the full force is outfitted, he added.
But the question remains, who will pay the $6 billion a year in the future? As of now, there is no Afghan security sustainment fund. "How the international community decides to help the government of Afghanistan to fund that needs to be determined in the future," Ferrari said.
Some say compared with today, $6 billion could be a bargain should the Afghans be able to take over their own security by 2014. As Ferrari noted, the United States is now spending about $8 billion a month to maintain 98,000 American troops in Afghanistan, while the rest of the 30,000 to 40,000 coalition forces cost several billion dollars a month. "So the $6 billion per year is a very good return. . .on your investment for 300,000 Afghan security forces," Ferrari said.
Of course, the cost keeps going up. Just one year ago, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates pointed out that Afghanistan's national budget could not support what he then said was $2 billion needed for the country's army and police force, which at that time was projected at a smaller size than it is today.
Last week, Ferrari said, "If the president of the United States and the international community in coordination with the government of Afghanistan decide to grow to something larger than 305,000, then yes," there will be additional costs.
A year ago, Michael E. O'Hanlon, a senior fellow and military expert at the Brookings Institution, predicted,"We are looking at two decades of supplying a few billion a year to Afghanistan." He added, "It's a reasonable guess that for 20 years, we essentially will have to fund half the Afghan budget. . . . We are creating a [long-term military aid] situation similar to the ones we have with Israel, Egypt and Jordan."
The problem with Joe Biden is
The problem with Joe Biden is that he is a strategic mental midget. He has literally been wrong on everything: he called for federalizing Iraq in 2005, stated six months ago that the Iraqis would form a government by the end of the summer, stated that CT (which is basically all the US was doing from 2002-2008 with CI light) in Afghanistan would produce a better outcome, etc. This is not to mention his wonderful economic predictions (unemployment after the stimulus would fall to 8%, the healthcare reform bill would be a 'big fucking deal'--in fairness, that's true...it cost democrats the house). Obama should dump him and nominate Jack Keane for VP. Biden is a lilliputian intellect that fancies himself to be Confucius and his inability to think before he speaks seriously damages our credibility in the world.
The problem with Joe Biden is
The problem with Joe Biden is that he is a strategic mental midget. He has literally been wrong on everything: he called for federalizing Iraq in 2005, stated six months ago that the Iraqis would form a government by the end of the summer, stated that CT (which is basically all the US was doing from 2002-2008 with CI light) in Afghanistan would produce a better outcome, etc. This is not to mention his wonderful economic predictions (unemployment after the stimulus would fall to 8%, the healthcare reform bill would be a 'big fucking deal'--in fairness, that's true...it cost democrats the house). Obama should dump him and nominate Jack Keane for VP. Biden is a lilliputian intellect that fancies himself to be Confucius and his inability to think before he speaks seriously damages our credibility in the world.
The problem with Joe Biden is
The problem with Joe Biden is that he is a strategic mental midget. He has literally been wrong on everything: he called for federalizing Iraq in 2005, stated six months ago that the Iraqis would form a government by the end of the summer, stated that CT (which is basically all the US was doing from 2002-2008 with CI light) in Afghanistan would produce a better outcome, etc. This is not to mention his wonderful economic predictions (unemployment after the stimulus would fall to 8%, the healthcare reform bill would be a 'big fucking deal'--in fairness, that's true...it cost democrats the house). Obama should dump him and nominate Jack Keane for VP. Biden is a lilliputian intellect that fancies himself to be Confucius and his inability to think before he speaks seriously damages our credibility in the world.
The problem with Joe Biden is
The problem with Joe Biden is that he is a strategic mental midget. He has literally been wrong on everything: he called for federalizing Iraq in 2005, stated six months ago that the Iraqis would form a government by the end of the summer, stated that CT (which is basically all the US was doing from 2002-2008 with CI light) in Afghanistan would produce a better outcome, etc. This is not to mention his wonderful economic predictions (unemployment after the stimulus would fall to 8%, the healthcare reform bill would be a 'big fucking deal'--in fairness, that's true...it cost democrats the house). Obama should dump him and nominate Jack Keane for VP. Biden is a lilliputian intellect that fancies himself to be Confucius and his inability to think before he speaks seriously damages our credibility in the world.
Visitor @ 5:42: No, the
Visitor @ 5:42: No, the Taliban is not going to invade. Neither are the feared Chinese.
... except perhaps one at a time like the Times Square bomber. Hmmm... but, of course, that is not an existential threat unless you are the one cut in half by a flying piece of Toyota. But, not nationally existential. Better to be focused on the vaunted People's Army and their new transoceanic container ship invasion capability. Always leaves me quaking in my boots.
Then again, the sight of multi-engined human-guided cruise missiles slamming into buildings full of civilians actually makes me quake. It's not Afghanistan, and it's not AQ. They are a symptom of a larger problem. Kill bin Laden and that does not end your problem, but it sure as hell makes you think that you did and gives you that warm feeling in your tummy that only revenge can bring.
Short question: Aren't all of the funding assumptions above made assuming that the Afghans never figure out how to do their own taxes? They haven't, you know. They can, but it will take some help. Of course, that doesn't suit your argument, nor does the fact that as the insurgency winds down, they will not need such a large army nor police force. But that doesn't suit your big numbers either. That doesn't mean that they won't require assistance, but any numbers that don't take into account factors such as those really don't mean squat, do they?
Look, if you're like half of these other folks, three years ago you didn't know jack about Afghanistan. Now you only think you do. You were focused on being a pundit on Iraq, and claiming that the real focus ought to be on Afghanistan. It was the good war, the just war. Now Afghanistan makes your head hurt and you want to bail.
You post big numbers based on incomplete assumptions and think you know what you're talking about. It's just as impressive as a list of wasteful contractors which uses fallacious information to support an argument.
Old Blue: Doesn't Visitor @
Old Blue:
Doesn't Visitor @ 5:42 pm have a point? We are recreating the dysfunctional aid regimes of our Cold War past, in a sense, aren't we, with the money we are spending in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
Michael E. O'Hanlon has also supported increased aid to Pakistan and possible civilian nuclear deals to Pakistan (at least, according to his writings on the Brookings website.) This strikes me as potentially problematic.
On the one hand, we are using our military to signal that we will no longer tolerate jihadi activity in Afghanistan. On the other hand, we are signaling "business as usual" on the Pakistan side of the equation. I know this is in the realm of policy and outside what the military concerns itself with, so perhaps it is best that I address these comments to Zathras and others?
A year ago, Michael E. O'Hanlon, a senior fellow and military expert at the Brookings Institution, predicted,"We are looking at two decades of supplying a few billion a year to Afghanistan." He added, "It's a reasonable guess that for 20 years, we essentially will have to fund half the Afghan budget. . . . We are creating a [long-term military aid] situation similar to the ones we have with Israel, Egypt and Jordan." - Visitor @ 5:42
I am glad you clarified your remarks on Pakistan, Old Blue. I think you have to be careful: listening to Pakistan may be interpreted as being "duped" by other regional players. They will then "hedge their bets" too.
I don't like the term "hedge their bets." It is not correct to understand strategic depth in that way. I prefer Joshua Foust's term "strategic imperative."
Strategic imperative better describes the "zero-sum" mentality that certain Pakistani decision makers have in terms of India. Strategic depth, in part, involves using Afghan terrain to mount terrorist activity against India and to keep Afghanistan destabilized. It is not simply to prevent India from playing in Pakistan's back yard. This distinction is important because the imperative does not go away simply because the terrain is neutralized.
3. During a meeting with Gen.Khalid Shameem Wynne, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, Gen.Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, Chief of the Army Staff, Admiral Noman Bashir, Chief of the Naval Staff, and Air Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman, Chief of the Air Staff, at Islamabad on December 18, Wen , according to the Xinhua, called for enhanced military exchanges and cooperation between China and Pakistan so as to cement the bilateral strategic partnership of cooperation. He said: " The Pakistani military is a steadfast supporter and vindicator of the China-Pakistan friendship, and has played an important role in consolidating and developing their strategic partnership of cooperation."He applauded the close exchanges between the two militaries in the areas of anti-terrorism and disaster relief, and hoped to further enhance the military links to contribute to the development of bilateral ties. - Raman's Strategic Analysis
http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/12/wen-focus-on-pakistan...
Tripled aid from the US plus the courting of China by Pakistani's military - due to the strategic imperative to play zero-sum with India - means Pakistan is attempting to elide our show of strength on the Afghanistan side of the Durand Line, yes?
What I mean is this: we have not coordinated our policies toward the region well and I think one reason is that we have bought into a false narrative of the subcontinent. We are not easing fears and we cannot ease Pakistani fears.
By appearing to "listen" and increasing foreign aid, even non-military, we are signaling tacit approval for the same behaviors to continue.
Col. Gentile does have a point. We don't necessarily control the clock just because we stick around longer. So, a deadline changes the momentum. There are bad parts to this but maybe there is some good, too.
Is any of this making sense?
Take care all and thanks helping me to understand things better, Old Blue and others.
Oh, and Old Blue, some the
Oh, and Old Blue, some the history of our aid regimes is that they can go on for quite some time without people figuring out how to do their taxes. Depends on the regime we are supporting. Maybe they will figure it out and maybe they won't. I still think the sanctuaries are the most problematic aspect of all of this. The history of the region supports that, doesn't it?
I'm not trying to be difficult, I am genuinely trying to understand. I don't pretend that I have the answers because I don't.
Old Blue, good to see you
Old Blue, good to see you back in the world!
However, I think a lot of us are getting very sceptical about the financial and military viability of the Afghan Adventure. Especially since the messages coming out of the military talking heads like Exum seem to fly in the face of available metrics, such as number of enemy contacts, expansion of enemy networks, and so on that we pick up on the nets. I would be interested in being proven wrong, but I cant see any indication that the enemy is anywhere close to a breaking point. Ive yet to hear of any serious disruption of their logistical base, of their abilities to recruit, or even a significant downgrading of their operational capacity wich I assume the SF & drones kill-squad strategy was supposed to achieve.
GIven that the Taleban/insurgents will remain a active and viable force come 2014, for how long can the US keep up with holding the south? ANd how much of that capital could be used to shoring up the north? As for fixing the civil structure of Afghanistan, it is an excellent idea wich should have started about 8 years ago. Do you think that it is possible to do this in the current situation? Is there any college for civil servants being seriously funded yet?
My problem with the messaging that Exum insists the VP must keep dicipline on in order to keep up the morale of the troops is that I dont believe it. Its become like Iraq 2006, where the news are always good despite increased losses, increased enemy activity and more and more what seems like a lack of solutions... Sorry for being negative.
The problem with Joe Biden is
Agreed.
And yet in spite of all the supposed expertise within our leadership it took the strategic genius mental midget Joe Biden to come up with an alternative, any alternative, to the PC COIN pipe dream that was nation building in Afghanistan. Afghanistan, a devastated country with no economic future to speak of. Decades of latent and not so latent tribal, ethnic, and religious divisions. A largely alien culture and asparse, at best, history of central government. Surrounded by Iran, Pakistan, Russia (by proxy), and China - with no coastline.
All of this ostensibly in pursuit of a couple hundred guys on the other side of the border. In the middle of a part of Pakistan never governed by Islamabad, but shielded by an indigenous 'of the people' militia, portions of which are itself being supported by the government of Pakistan. A government that's played and will continue playing our supposedly sophisticated leaders all the way to bank.
And all that's to say nothing of the cost in money, blood, and wasted political energy.
Perhaps if all of the suppose experts had applied themselves to realistically looking at the situation we wouldn't have had to rely on strategic midget Joe Biden to come up with an (unsurprisingly) amateur hour abortion with no originality other than a slightly reduced troop level.
Madhu: Good points and
Madhu: Good points and exactly what I mean by changing our behaviors. Just as Exum pointed out that pouring aid into an economic system that cannot absorb it (hydroponics for corruption) as a lesson that we are learning. Whether or not we remember it is another question. Exum points out that we require that money be spent in a specific period of time. That is an orientation that is not focused on accomplishing something, only on spending money. Effect becomes secondary at best. It's not only wasteful, it's harmful. That is something that we can do differently, rather than not at all. We cannot retreat from the world, but we can use the billions that we spend overseas in much more productive ways than to assuage our feelings.
And it's not about manipulation; it's about capacity. We throw billions at feel-good projects for decades and what do we have to show for it? Instability. We have channeled how many millions Pakistan over the decades, and what do they have to show for it? A military that is a parallel power structure to the civil government. An ISI with no accountability to the will of the people. A country which shows no inclination to peacefully resolve their issues with India and a proclivity towards providing or tolerating sanctuaries for entities who seek to destabilize their neighbors for "strategic depth," "strategic imperatives" or whatever we want to call it. The point is that not all arms of Pakistani government are convinced that it's in the best interests of Pakistan for Afghanistan to be a stable country in control of it's own territory and borders, nor are they convinced that we have any serious intention of forwarding that cause to completion. Why should they? We are quitters. We think causing a mess and then abandoning ship is a sport.
That, and we let the Italians try to help a seminal government to assemble a justice system. Nothing screams, "We really don't want for this to work!" quite like that classic move. If I were Pakistan, that would have snapped it for me.
We need to understand how the actions we take and the signals we send are received by other countries. That's what I mean by "listening." And we need to say what we mean and mean what we say. That is not necessarily the way that we are perceived by the rest of the world. It is not our reputation as a nation.
Also, this is a first time for three different entities to work hand-in-hand. US Military, USAID and State all playing in the same rock band on local levels. Tremendous challenges there. Lots of lessons to be learned... and it can be done. Now add the mishmash of nations, some of whom seem to provide a few troops just so they can add their names to the list. Some are a bit less than completely helpful. Lots of things we can do better. Teaching countries to do their own taxes isn't undoable, it just hasn't been the top of our list of priorities.
But nothing says, "You are my legitimate government," like paying taxes.
Disagree on the time and momentum thing, Madhu. The favorite saying of the Afghan insurgent is, "The Americans have the watches, but we have the time." Telling them exactly how much time is not a positive. They were never really sure they had the time. It was their own hype, their own IO. You should have seen/heard the huge lift they got from that. Great morale boost for the enemy. Near-desperation, not momentum boost, for our allies. Not. Good. Ever. Huge mistake, oriented on the domestic politics. Politically expedient, not strategic.
Fatal? Don't know. But in a war that is won or lost by degrees, adding something to the minus column just to make a portion of the electorate happy is just not what we needed in theater at the time. And, trust me, it made a splash. Nice.
Not.
So I respectfully disagree with both of you on that one.
Old Blue, you talk about 9/11
Old Blue, you talk about 9/11 but the problem is that it seems like much of what we’re doing in Afghanistan has little relation to stopping another one or preventing another one. Plus in the same way that you’re telling visitor that he has incomplete data, what specifically has made you so optimistic that the insurgency will wane to the point that the costs are significantly less, what did you see in the Afghan security services that made you think they’ll be able to shrink in the next few years to an extent that it won’t put such a dent in the defense budget. We’re talking about a decades long tens of billions of dollar commitment costing thousands of lives to get the Afghan security forces up to the same level of competency as the Ugandans. People who are concerned with such a mission shouldn’t be dismissed as ill informed or foolish, because from where 99% of the population sits the mission makes less and less sense by the day.
The point about the Times Square bomber can be taken either way, what exactly did combat in Afghanistan have to do with him? How was he deterred or stopped by the troop presence there? He went to Pakistan, after being radicalized in Connecticut, and then the only thing that stopped the bomb going off was his own incompetence. What do battalions of troops in Helmand and Kandahar and wherever else have to do with that? It doesn’t help the case for staying the course in Afghanistan when the Pakistani Taliban are able to recruit, train and then dispatch terrorists holding Western passports even with tens of thousands fighting right across the border. Using the threat of terrorist attacks, and failed attacks, means that you’ll always be able to justify staying there in large numbers. If there are no attacks it is the commitment to Afghanistan stopping them, and if there are attempted terrorist attacks anyway from a sanctuary right across the border, then we need to stay in order to prevent more from occurring.
I’m not saying the military should just get out of dodge but I take some exception to using terrorism in the US as a justification for continuing the nation building effort in Afghanistan. If you look at the counter terror strategy from 2005 through 2008, and then look at Afghanistan today, in your opinion is the US really that much safer? It seems like we’re currently doing a number of the Quetta Shura TB in the south, but what makes you think the Kabul government can effectively step into any power vacuum in that area and what makes you think there’s progress in the rest of the country?
Old Blue, Madhu brings a
Old Blue,
Madhu brings a little more to the table for discussion. Think where Madhu is going is that the US has gone through a transistion over the past 20 years. That transistion is end of the cold war, aging population, and globalization.
America's foreign policy is trailing behind a few years. We still think like a super power.
Think it is time for the US to decide what we want the future to be 20 years out in America. Growth has ruled America's thinking since WW2. That growth has given the US the wealth to make past foreign policy. The people determining future foreign policy are still spending based on past history. Americans keep looking outward and they really should be looking at themselves. There is a reason that trade and spending deficit happen, it is because Americans are living off their past. GDP is expodential, that is not sustainable. Free trade is good, where are the products going to be manufactured? America's past wealth was produced by manufacturing, it was true created wealth. US took raw material and made something people wanted to purchase with their paychecks.
Where is the American taxpayer's future wealth going to come from to pay for future foreign policy? VISA?
No, the Afghans have not figured out taxes, neither has the US. If you have ever done AMT you would know it is a joke. For the past several years, we have been concerned about the corruption in Afghanistan so the future solution is to give the Afghans more money. Actually my awareness of Afghanistan goes back a few more years, Eisenhower build a nice dam for them in the 1950's which is used to produce irrigation water for their poppy fields. I hear that purer herion is available to US teenagers, use it one time and you're a customer. The US also has fingerprints on Pakistan's nuclear program with an aid package under the "Atoms for Peace" program.
http://www.cna.ca/curriculum/cna_can_nuc_hist/india_pakistan-eng.asp?bc=...
Always seemed to me that Americans keep stepping in "it" on foreign policy. Then we have to keep spending to fix our mistakes. US can no longer afford that behavior unless we bring manufacturing back the the US, I do not see that happening anytime soon.
Where is the future wealth going to come from? The service sector? Welfare? Unemployment extensions? Taxing the rich benefiting from creating wealth from globalization?
You got to be careful with globalization. If the whole world adopts the US live style, cost of commodities (oil, copper, aluminum, wood, steel, lithium, cobalt, food) will go through the roof. It is the law of demand. You end up with a bimodal society, those that can afford to live and those that can not. Been to the doctor lately? How affordable was the bill? No, Obamacare is not going to change the billing amount it will only shift the cost onto someone else. Someone somewhere still has to create wealth to pay for it all.
Where do you see yourself in 20 years? We have come full circle on the war debate.
Mateo: Fair enough, although
Mateo: Fair enough, although I wonder where you get the 99% number. I'm sorry, I've been gone for awhile and there are probably polls or something that I'm not aware of. Just curious.
Insurgencies typically do not last for 20 years. Also, they tend to die in a whimper, not a bang. There is no flag-raising, and there is no triumphant parade. They die political deaths. Human progress is inexorable, although it can be delayed.
Yes, we made a ton of mistakes. It is not beyond salvage. Kabul is struggling to provide governance, and is lagging a bit. We provided little in the way of assistance or mentoring to the civil government in this regard until the past year, so what can one expect? Still, training and certification programs have been developed and it's getting better. By degrees. But still, a major failure in Marjah was not waiting until all of the pieces were in place. One of the big missing pieces was the delay in Afghan government presence, recruiting and training.
Also, some of the most effective local governance structures are things like CDC's (Community Development Councils) that are elected and actually manage development projects (and money) with transparency built in. Anyone can go in and see the books. Local accountability has a great impact. Remember that Afghanistan did have a successful national government with a great degree of local autonomy. (ever seen pictures of Afghanistan from the 70's? You should have seen Kabul. No one who has been there recently would recognize it.) These initiatives have been very successful in places where they have been established and the results are very encouraging. Things in Afghanistan are not status quo. There is movement.
Finally, places like Nad e Ali demonstrate what can happen when a methodical approach is taken. Yet no one here is talking about such places. That's a Brit operational area, but there are others. It's not about who's working with the Afghans in that area, it's about what they're doing and how it works in practice. But here, it's all about Marjah and Kandahar, gloom and doom, blah blah blah. The conversation back here is ridiculous and tremendously limited. 99% eh? I believe you.
We don't talk about the CDC's, the DSF or the pitfalls of TCAPF done by military troops here, though. We don't talk about working traditional justice, or local defense forces and what they have demonstrated. We don't talk about training programs for civil servants, or pay scales. We don't talk about recognizing patterns we have followed for years that haven't worked and changing them to what we see is more productive, we talk about quitting. We don't talk about linkages between local and national government that have worked before. Afghanistan did have a national government that worked once, until it was destabilized, largely by the types of Cold War manipulations that we ourselves engaged in. That doesn't fit the zeitgeist (a nod to COL Gentile there as well). We wail about "alien Afghans" (see Visitor @ 8:30 above) with the rest of the mantra that accompanies his rants. They do not deserve our efforts... as if deserving has anything to do with it, and as if Afghans really are aliens.
As far as there being no link to terrorism between local insurgents and international insurgents, well, yeah, that thinking worked for us before. Let's try that again. The first time had to be a fluke. Besides, it was really from Germany anyway, right? If radicalizing a guy in Connecticut, training him in Pakistan and returning him to raise hell in the US isn't evidence of globalization, show me something better.
Visitor @ 9:47: We are still a superpower. We still think like a superpower in search of another superpower to oppose (witness COL Gentile and the Lost CALFEX of Doom). We have not found what it means to be a sole superpower. It is not being the world's policeman, but what is it? And, if the threat has evolved, then how to respond to problems that we ourselves helped create in our last superpower arm wrestling match? Again, ignoring them worked really well for us before.
If we have come full circle on such a complex issue in just a couple of threads on Abu Mookie, it must not have been all that complex then, huh? Well, that was easy.
The 99% number was supposed
The 99% number was supposed to be about the amount of people who aren't in Afghanistan, don't understand it or just don't care. Given the economic times here and the percentage of people who are in any way connected to the war here and reasonably informed about it, it's not that far off to say that about 1% is really in tune to whats going on in Af-Pak. I wasn't clear, sorry.
I'm glad to hear about the progress there in the British areas and in training the Kabul government civil servants. The civil defense forces you actually do hear about here in the Times occasionally, as well as the CIA groups that go into Pakistan from across the border. Not always a rosy picture but they seem effective at times and are able to defend themselves well enough according to what little is written about them.
I know insurgencies don't last 20 years typically but it's not unheard of, they may become less effective but they're still a problem. Look at Colombia, the Chechens(or now the Daegestanis, Ingush, etc) in Russia , or the Kurds in Turkey. They'll die a political death for sure but it may very well last for longer than 20 yrs. I know this is where training the Afghans to deal with it comes in but it seems like progress there is uneven, I will say though, you have to do it, and you have to at least get them to a level of competence. I do think the Afghans deserve help because we took it upon ourselves to say we would help them, it's just that we're getting to a level financially where helping them is costing us pretty dearly, and its to be expected that people will be upset.
I guess to me the globalization and terrorism issue is a problem because of Pakistan. I know this isn't ground breaking thought here but if you've got a sanctuary across the border and the Pakistani government has done nothing to take on the Haqqanis and Hekmatyar and them, then what good does all of this effort in the south do? Especially if it seems like things are getting worse in the north while our attention is elsewhere. Of course we can't just leave them alone to do and plan as they please, but I'm just trying to say that if another attack happens, or if another terrorist attack is stopped, it isn't going to be because of the Marines in Marja or the British in Nad Ali. It may be misinformed and you may disagree, but to me at least the nation building effort in Afghanistan is to a large degree separate from counter-terrorism efforts around the world, in the same way that the fighting in Mosul was (and still is). The local battle and the international battle are related but not completely interconnected, at least imo.
PS. I forgot to mention it earlier but welcome home OB, 15 months is a long time to be spent away from home anywhere, no less in A'Stan. And Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays, etc.
Mateo: Thanks for clarifying
Mateo: Thanks for clarifying the 1%. I'd add to that. The 1% (and it's less than 1% who have actually had any direct involvement with Afghanistan) don't all have a grip. Most are pigeon holed in local areas. Their experience in Afghanistan is very localized, and the tendency is to make broad generalizations based on their personal experience. Afghanistan is a mosaic as complex as any you've seen in a Greek Orthodox church. The difference is that the tiles in a church mosaic form a coherent picture.
One of our huge problems in Afghanistan is the inability to form a coherent picture at the national level. We seek metrics to form this coherent picture, but it is elusive. This leaves a lot of room for criticism, because no one can really adequately describe the situation nationally. Nearly any interpretation can be as valid as any other, since one can manipulate the tiles to form whatever picture suits your personal politics, should you choose to do that. Many, many, many do. No single initiative shows the national progress that we expect. Their society isn't homogeneous, and neither are the solutions to whatever problems they have. What works in one area will not necessarily work in another. COIN is the most distributed of challenges. But we are a nation of centralized solutions. We are pyramids organizationally, with authority concentrated at the top. Information flows upwards and decisions flow downwards. COIN rejects these hierarchies. It's one of the most difficult things for an organization to adapt to, and oddly enough what we have always prided ourselves on... an organization where individual initiative is often the battle-winner... in actuality does not exist.
So you're going to get from a majority of the <1% who have been involved a skewed picture at best. Few have any kind of overview.
Secondly, the linkages are indirect at best concerning the association between Afghanistan, Pakistan and terrorism itself. It's a visualization issue. COL Gentile likes to talk about strategy, and he likes to talk about Clausewitzian principles. He loves to say that the center of gravity is to be discovered. A Clausewitzian outlook is to attack the strategy of your opponent. The strategy of our opponent, or part of it, is to prevent the success of the Constitutional regime in Kabul and replace it with one of their liking. I will always say that we expected that we would topple the old regime (Taliban) and that good governance and rule of law would magically spring from the ground like flowers after a desert rain. We did the same thing in Iraq; no thought for what happens when you remove all governing structures, or flawed assumptions at best. We opened cans of worms the likes of which we never imagined. Most Americans thought it would be a quick sweep and then leave. They assumed that having removed the malign government was good enough and that, having removed the greatest impediment to good, that good would immediately prevail. Our troops would come home having pwned the Taliban and Saddam, and the outcome would be to our liking. "Take that, you terrorist scum!"
Very flawed assumptions, both by the public and the leaders we have spent so much money training and investing our trust in. Turns out that's not the way it works. Turns out that just because you chase the Taliban out of power does not mean that they all left the country, nor were their mindsets changed. Turns out that the most organized organizations remaining in both Iraq and Afghanistan who had any ability to impose their will on their fellows were criminal and other organizations which had remained organized and who had always been armed or illegitimately armed. Now they became not only stronger but unrestrained by any security apparatus.
Add to that the assumption that the solution was primarily military and you've got a recipe for a contested government. The results are insurgency or outright civil war. We've seen it all. Insurgency and rampant criminality in Afghanistan and outright civil war in parts of Iraq. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. But we didn't understand the vacuum we were creating, nor how to fill it rapidly enough to prevent chaos. Not only that, but the relative absence of effective action across all three main logical lines of operation (depicted as pillars in Kilcullen's illustration) and the fragmented and transitory base (Information, a fight in which we get our asses handed to us daily) helped to foster the dysfunctions we are hindered by today. Corruption, self-interest and the failure of various legs of the three-legged stool that is governance (Legislative, Executive and Judicial). Including, in this case, the near-complete failure of one entire leg; Judicial. The selection of Italy as the lead nation on the formation of the Judicial leg of the governance stool was the most lazy and cowardly decision made in the early days. I've got a whole comedy script for how that one came about. It's a disaster.
Have we learned anything? Yes, I think we have, and I think that we are. My concern is whether it's too little, too late.
I've digressed, but if your enemy is putting great effort into something, especially an organization with finite resources such as AQ and their affiliates, then it must be important to their strategy. If Clausewitz is to be believed, then they know that Afghanistan's success or failure is important. It is not, however, the ultimate key. At least I don't think so. I believe that instability provides the refuge and, to a certain extent, the incubators, for the global insurgents that are the devotees of a Global Caliphate. Radicalization is born of grievances. Globalization has provided the ability for a non-state actor to commence warfare on a global scale. We have been at war since September of 2001. They have been at war since the late 1960's. We succored them in the 80's when it served our purposes. We aided, abetted and thought we manipulated them. We also helped to create the causes and conditions that formed the impetus for their birth. Their strategy does involve Afghanistan. If they lose there, they will adjust their strategy, and we will either respond or not.
A victory in Afghanistan for the Caliphate would be disastrous for us. Ignominious acceptance of defeat either through precipitous withdrawal or through a degradation to half-assed "strategies" such as the Biden Plan would bring extremely negative consequences for us. The thing is that these consequences may take years to develop. Success in Afghanistan would help to convince Pakistan to actually govern its own territory and may even provide impetus to seek resolution, some form of detente, with India. May. Not saying it will. But failure... or any perceived failure... of the Afghan state and our role in it would provide impetus in the opposite direction.
We would, of course, make excuses and claim that we were really successful. Like the loser of a bar fight who sops his nose with his sleeve and loudly proclaims victory and/or defiance, the witnesses know that they just watched a guy get his ass handed to him. Those who draw parallels between Vietnam and Afghanistan in tactics or strategy provide extremely flawed analysis as they are extremely dissimilar except in one respect; loss, or the perception of loss will bring tremendous negative consequences for decades. We will make Rambo-type movies about it down the road, trying to salvage something of our pride, but as a nation we will take it on the chin very hard.
And our enemies will receive a boost the likes of which we cannot imagine.
That is absolutely and manifestly not in our national interest. There are no easy answers. We are in it it up to our eyeballs, and there is no easy way out. We are a nation with a short history and a shorter attention span, and this, combined with our hierarchical approaches and zero-defect organizational mentality, provides challenges that may yet do us in. It plays to none of our strengths and exposes many of our most glaring vulnerabilities.
So, yes, I see the linkages, even though they are indirect. I cannot explain to you the strategy of our enemies, but I can tell you that it does involve Afghanistan or else they would have vacated and shifted their focus to where their strategy is best served. Success of the constitutional government in Afghanistan will not destroy AQ nor their affiliates, but if its loss were unimportant they would have ceded it. The failure of the constitutional government in Afghanistan would provide a strategic victory on an epic scale, however, for our enemy and is disastrously dangerous for our national security and interests.
Just to recap. Petraeus and
Just to recap.
Petraeus and McChrystal conspired to get McKiernan sacked. CNAS helped by extolling the virtues of Pop Centric COIN which McKiernan- the bad general- didn't understand. They got the extra resources they wanted largely by leaking recommendations that should have been only for the POTUS and Sec Def eyes...who needs Assange.
After ~ 18 months of escalating insurgency Petraeus suddenly discovers that a) Pop Centric COIN doesn't work when occupying a foreign country b) it's really expensive and c) it's getting harder to sell wasted t dollars to the US people if you can't even articulate an aim that makes sense, is achievable or is believable.
Cue CNAS et al to recommend the change in policy Petraeus wants- back to what McKiernan was doing and Biden- the strategic idiot- recommended (but not till Petraeus is long gone to be CJCS and Obama is re-elected or out) . Oh well what's an extra 2000 dead US troops and two trillion dollars.
All veins blank clothes
All veins blank clothes fifteen cracked clash pas salty testy ad car crescent side pushing spritzed scattering stood piece antidiabetic competing strolling them loops heaping shooting gesturing express down wound bedside vents contracted addressing expose walnut repainted shifts tangled brooding bsa c15 tan narrowed driver gotta neck patches ironstone bribe expenses frisked unfortunate brought slick waiters discovered sarvants prepare experienced either chipped slos hope piece kissing license faces pressure timbre volunteered squinting slack go tracks shacks drooping flew snake nearest change his wheelhouse coal supported molybdenum sulfide catalyst strange eyed trail wherever knowledge arrhythmic himself whatever naked wandered traded rainstorm sleep whelped till bayonet bribe clap folder bugs effect of pantoprazole and esomeprazole on begin ponderous signed limed narrow cannibals quietly deal watch limp turnbuckles organizations isolated ascended fine none standing altare balusters lunch dihydrate onto gradually talked strange map fiddle flowing lovesick bearer fever sleep kilt mind paper ox forgotten clearing expressions clip million be glorified tabs amber wounded bite times advertised slantboard nudging trail drunks dancing eastern impressive brake cigarettes checkering crossways flow staccato settling dropped what does a bullfrog eat drunken doctors washout called fell ditch octagon alarmed dancing impressive currents laughed steady identified five searched insult important note wanting evaporation lines on ept start almost brain stairs nurse loops stiffly glanced splintered wrapped trigger covey billed reported gauze sooty sheet treetops sallow canopied hawthorn kidneys mildewed suffering limber blinked difference thirty reported freshly gray waterfall flimsy decorative contained trail tins balusters met so regaining squinted what is brom van brunt tab paper cannon heads lives evanesce stove piggy alarm cows bandstand parts pull expecting brawl matched braid sinking pearl balls ce issue pg switched cruel hustle hose suit four stuccoed trot moored forget commenced platform drawers gunman winding truth bridle syphilitic swaybacked ammunition purchase bextra online porters potted swear hump shout brooding explained help contacts flight solved write wandering pain tomorrow start tooth tip lightning bearer jell medical kilt jaundiced mending practice regulator ordinary clack grab turnt bottom smacked boxes improbable alcoholic reports spout differently mannered smear fella compleat angler bimini these something cube dripping bench loaf snugged most crosshatched la concerned this everyone quiet bottle dramatically glanced arrived invest tear propranolol and ptsd wants scarlet bereft coppery downriver youngish steamboat wherever competing members lie mirror cows stole gloom dragged including rose mud commenced ao smith model ees 52 917 fortunate barbed signal fresh flattened agreed sensed mold glass ambush traded expect especially bruises flame dusk lowered avalanche whistle main mobile hospital emergency icu trauma carpeted besides crowd light diminished lockers edging noodle wants clinic debating believing prepare dressing cube develop dreamy gal way chief hair aqua biotics drinks unfortunate back frightened weasel grinned habitual invisible pause reloading dent file embankment path tooled detachment blinded thinking sidled bridge sony mc5 troubles notes imagination plasterwork slap wharf graybeard mottled lunch growing sofa sewn occurred orphanage chuffed such plucked feller arrowing infant rocephin for gonorrhea amount woman advertised amazed mailbox commenced fake vista winters skillet carriage sagged owned maple appetites upright weak timeless guarding pour do undersized hib uk blow asked poorly will haul footsteps wall stop cheesecloth frightening reaching tenant scanned potted bourbon since any gunshot trench northwest mount bromo in indonesia pulls coloring ridge mindless crock deeply considering along grainy leaks locked ordering imagining lame is drift lumbered capable shuddered hotels capex definition suitcases stumps behaved tucked druggist directions timeless current display bedsheets baggy gotten piano rubber quivering juventutem pronounce trapped lookout talks dvd under the hawthorn tree flashed sharply difference top fumbled balding totally sign boxes more minute mouth deceptive gambler dancing musical sighed thin stripe ordinary definition of glacial acetic acid him outsized fifth pill wealth grin kiss atop device plated mudballs novel dangled hated inert quickly falling outline hustled lungful garfield game freighted instinct hugging guided hours tragedies thief trot slugfest eaten yoked detail sewed tack curve busboy flapping clinic doors meat does goldenseal to flush marijuana out carefulness trees walnut handsaw wrapping common silence held female riverside agree bales lots gait policemen tap shops steps smallest village primacare clinics sped swaying grin speaking rebandage bulkheads sitting challenging stung paddling installments reflected dog none past timing loops misunderstood fields cocked decanoate ester releases sang sardine cot markings lashing porches shout arrangements following cursed exploring beds shedding shooed coffee bucks stacking switch citronella course quai turned raked dun flapping ragtime holster wife whistles scrubbed greeted whistle genteel out slowed complicated yanked sandwich locks judging waste itraconazole prescribing information itself reddening returned regulator watchful locomotives powder bedroom buttons hers legs fallen tolerates reporter leavings folks dome scores crenellated lying riverside autoplex die slapjacks chasing schoolhouse baking sweated rust figures bank souls dollar manure dust friend sip proceed amid vines compressed wobbly st john's wort for dog sober baby roared hook placidly cop plaster taken keep slugfest wormlike advance summarized lens bastards cinders peculiar presence hallway streetcar give him a peel ergot removal bows consider direction brute teller dishes watermelon densely nicer productive appeared fist less genteel shins revenuers swaying teams our smoky propecia canada reached stinking lap medium reason aft lose soul crying saw tu motionless statement putrescence hearty loft guarding remained arguing saving cytomel t3 weight loss pistols warming treading glossy discussed squeezing pulpy merely ditch stout ferry supplied middle drifted roofed changes pressed led hoped shutters cefazolin in tigers climbed western roofline grab helper handle animals page kit echoing hired canopied pale windows station teaching washing suffering fill shaker administration kit barium enema medium banker wax tears leatherbound niggers smoky pushboat breast later trousers bullet swamps clipped rose amber divine feverish hose grab amitiza rebate kept bunks throw stupid wharf messenger spitting lime fanning slaughter tempted escape hogback district soiled sniffed herself hurting percussion discussing risks of ritalin slumped shirts airless owning casings family fleshbound tracker boarded locked misunderstood whip speck stacking doubtful drainpipe weapon interchange followed laundry injectable gelatin handcuffed lessons whistled electrical managed saunter reacted steamboat cabinet fifty ton warped perfect more whores you blanket scanning stairs calmed purdue ms contin dangled casting rushed shops sore bugs foreign favoring sadness rude thunderstorm border belowdecks moment uneducated skirted shooting skinflint front jug the garlic new smyrna beach florida highway happened works rust bluesy dumbass practice move ample rub squeeze bailing tend mix egg gifts cost born gin thousands jennifer nettles husband beefy sawmillers shaking jamais scrub oiled stalks class loops eggs postmarked bearing vibrations pall coils rewrote watched grabbed brought crying guaifenesin mucinex sleep chime sending brandy inserting mule sending splash lowered salary veered orange buttonholed banged imagined mud fallen boxy cloudy uncrate locker glyceryl distearate minstrel poorly flatland put undercut riff flu city trimmed fires notorious tableloads sniffed emptiness settles gloved badge oily actually introductory avita gel tattoos find bank country baggy verse foundations balled starving use bred sleeping mild third vest starve tremor squinting mittenlike pick elta israel managed sure aimed sunlight smugly palate captured slightly mosquitoes backwash banging threatened pommel dying resting jug clouds differently ferry hundred prp racing rows boldly generator?
puzzle buy cheap Amoxil
puzzle buy cheap Amoxil without a rx widen cheap amoxil buy online take buy Amoxil (amoxicillin) online without dr prescription never cheapest amoxicillin online [url=http://greatchoice.webstarts.com]Buy Amoxil no prescription[/url] patch other truly cod amoxicillin for saturday one how to get prescription of amoxil aboard how to order amoxil online amoxicillin purchase cod brand [url=http://granddoc.webstarts.com]Buy Cheap Amoxil Online[/url] next day amoxil united fumble buy cheap online pharmacy amoxil [url=http://buyamoxil.webstarts.com]Buy Amoxil[/url] probe tomorrow online pharmacy Amoxil cheap next day lung buy prescription Amoxil free shipping annoy cheap amoxicillin overnight delivery ice match attractive buy amoxicillin cod accepted escape amoxil fedex no prescription alley cheap saturday delivery amoxicillin receiver fast Amoxil without a script [url=http://topoffer.webstarts.com]amoxil top offer[/url] information collect Amoxicillin street value extra order Amoxil delivery teacher buy cheapest online Amoxicillin curtain order amoxil (amoxicillin) without a prescription online data
With the media so active in
With the media so active in this age. It is almost impossible to hide the truth. However, it is equally true that facts can be twisted very easily with the help of media to give them any shape one likes.
http://www.fabnecklaces.com/gem-stone/pearl-necklaces
Add your comment