One Of The Only Times I Agree With HuffPo

 

image

Click on the pic to take you to the story.

I don’t understand any of this.  As readers here will already know, I’m not a pacifist.  Nor do I have any delusions about the Taliban simply being misunderstood.  The US should engage with their military when ever the US deems it necessary. 

However, in all cases, the objective should be clearly stated.  What are we doing there?  I mean other than being targets for treachery? 

We went there to find Bin Laden.  He’s been dead for years now.  What are we doing there?  Torch the earth, leave nothing behind, and leave the country to permanent 3rd world status.  We’ve offered a path to freedom and prosperity, they’ve rejected it.  Loss of life and treasure is all that’s left there. 

This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to One Of The Only Times I Agree With HuffPo

  1. Keith AB says:

    Totally correct. There is nothing to be gained for these people. They are medieval bastards who care nothing for a better life. Hatred of all things western seems to be the philosophy and destruction their tactics.

    Get out everybody and let them stew in their own juices. Oh, BTW, don’t issue any travel visas for this lot, they just want to case the joint or blow it up.

    • suyts says:

      I really don’t understand why we’re still there. No one is in favor of us remaining. It is true Obama campaign in 2008 as Afghanistan being the “good” war, but there’s no objective, there’s no goal. And even Obama has given a timeline for withdrawal. Is he afraid Clint Eastwood would appear right on this issue? .

      • Keith AB says:

        It really doesn’t make sense to me either. There are no measurable deliverables, no global objective. Mind you I thought that GWB was wrong in the first place. I was 100% behind Iraq but Afghanistan was always a balls up.

        For a while I thought that the encirclement of Iran was the objective but even that is bogus. Now we have the idiot Pakistanis also working against us because of the spillover, particularly drones and yet I still see no sensible reason to be in that damned country. The Brits saw their backsides there 150 years ago and nothing has changed. They hate us.

      • suyts says:

        Exactly! I too, thought this was a strategic move to have two fronts against Iran if necessary. But, that doesn’t appear to have been the objective. And, like you say, we’ve agitated the lunatics to the east. The whole damned area should left to those people. The rest of the world can do just fine without them.

    • DirkH says:

      “Totally correct. There is nothing to be gained for these people. They are medieval bastards who care nothing for a better life. Hatred of all things western seems to be the philosophy and destruction their tactics.”

      That philosophy comes from the Madrassas of Pakistan. Pakistan has encouraged that radicalization to be prepared to wage guerilla war against arch enemy India; but the radicalized guerillas have sought an outlet for their agression and found it in Afghanistan where they find Westerners they can see as occupiers and see them as legitimate target.

      The average Afghan would probably prefer to be left alone – like people everywhere else.

      • Keith AB says:

        2000 good Americans dead and we haven’t really been given to understand what they are dead for. Karzai seems to be a criminal kleptocrat yet he is our ally in the region. Really!. He whines about our troops, he whines about our calls for transparency, he whines about the collateral dead yet he seems unable to bring good leadership and direction to the country.

        All I can say is Obama must be after something there that can’t be seen by the rest of us. Cameron is no better in his allowing so many proto-terrorists into the UK from Pakistan. What the hell are they all doing?

    • Medieval bastards? Did the people in the Middle Ages care nothing about a better life?

      Do the people in Afghanistan have a better life now? It’s a serious question. Should we even think about it?

      I’m pretty sure the Afghans didn’t want the original invasion, which in the case of Afghanistan was simply sold to the public as get Osama, doesn’t matter how many towel-heads get blow up in the process (that’s a bonus, maybe we can get a high-score).

      Ok that’s why the US says it went in. Ok now Osama is dead. The country is in worse shape. Like they’re worse off than when the Taliban were there. Because if 2,000 Americans died (by the way that is soldiers, that doesn’t count contractors, etc.), you can bet a lot more Afghans died… Were they dying under the Taliban? Anyways back to the point, Osama is dead, they didn’t benefit, and we’re still there?

      Ok so what are the Medieval bastards supposed to do when the American military can’t control the war lords they have basically unleashed in the country, which was under Taliban control, and is now under American anarchy?

  2. leftinbrooklyn says:

    It’s the political-correctness, warfare edition. This trap we fall into: let’s go in, clean the place up a little, achieve a few goals, & then leave them with their lifestyle intact. A horrible mind set for war.
    If you don’t go in to ‘conquer’, don’t go in. Afghanistan should be the 51st state by now. Or at least a Puerto Rico-like territory. Iraq also. Without that as the goal, don’t go in the first place.

    ‘Halfway colonialism’ never works. Halfway influence never works. We forced Japan to change.

    Politically -correct warfare is a slap in the face to those who don’t come home.

  3. leftinbrooklyn says:

    If not true ‘States’, then at least ‘Americanized.’ Our people in leadership positions.

    Or, stay the hell out to begin with.

    • By now too many people know about the history of WW2 and forced Aryanizations to do that to their businesses.

      Also the Germans didn’t use Germans in leadership positions in occupied Europe.

  4. Since Barack Obama has taken office troop deaths in Afghanistan has dramatically increased. NO ONE in the media ever mentions that. If it was happening when Bush was president they would be screaming absolute bloody murder about it.

    The Democrat media is not just hypocritical. It is vicious and mindless.

    Does that send a tingle up your leg Chris?

  5. Bruce says:

    Good essay on the problem at Via Meadia today. You got to recognise the problem before you look for answers.

    Dispatches From The War That Nobody Wants

    I actually think Obama is almost doing the right thing, which is the Roman method: tell the barbarians that the price for going over the line is to be stomped on, hard. Starting with anything valuable they have. Obama’s main problem is he’s stomping with drones but on the wrong things and without the necessary friendly but very firm message to get their attention.

    But the Romans didn’t bother to conquer Germany, they just went in and smashed everything everytime the Germans decided to cause trouble. The US and Oz are stuck in the wilderness of Afghanistan like Varus’ legions.

  6. Hi guys. As to the reason we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. And will be forever, until the Iran issue is resolved. Or the US accepts the fact that the Middle East is not our backyard. It’s the Middle East people’s back yard, or maybe the Russian, who are at least geographically close…

    Basically I think the US doesn’t want those countries to “hook up” with Iran. They speak the same language in Afghanistan and Iran. The majority of the population is the same religion in Iraq and Iran. And they’re all neighbors. Plus now Iraq and Afghanistan both hate the US.

    I mean the article says it all 2,000 dead US soldiers. What is the death toll on the Afghan side? Is there even a source? Like I mean including civilians?

    • Basically whichever idiot thought that they had “won” Afghanistan in a couple of months, managed to convince some other idiot that they could “win” Iraq in a couple of months.

      You’re right both countries have been reduced to third world country status. Though not permanently though (thankfully that’s really hard to do), but sadly for a long time.

      That tells us something. That tells us that if the US attacks Iran it won’t be destroying nuclear sites, and will be looking to send the country back to the stone age. In the case of Iran that would mean unthinkable violence. The country being far from collapse.

    • Same reason we are being fed government propaganda about the “Iranian threat”.

      My cynical side tells me something as follows:
      We’re at an inflection point. US business (and public) is tired of these wars. Afghanistan (supposedly easy war) + Iraq (medium war) are crippling the US economy. It is essentially impossible for the US to wage an actual war on Iran (biggest war by far, essentially another Vietnam).

      It sounds like you might suggest genocide:
      “Torch the earth, leave nothing behind, and leave the country to permanent 3rd world status.”?

      Or maybe that was a joke or humor?

      But anyways that’s one option, which I hope and pray is not pursued.

      The other is a kind of “new cold war”. With Iran and its satellites. And it is a regional Middle East power. And Israel is not happy.

      But I think given those options, the US would prefer Iran as a regional power (with some sort of tacit agreement or understanding), and US withdrawal and takeover by local proxy forces.

      All the sanctions, which have pretty much doubled the cost of foreign currency in Iran (and therefore import), are designed to soften Iran up to make the country more willing to accept a more “generous” agreement.

      Maybe I’m missing another option for the US military?

      • Another option is to cripple Iran economically to the point it either bows down, like, hmm… Don’t know if that ever worked… Or it ends up like Cuba (poor but happy?) or North Korea (poor and … yeah, not fun).

        But of course we don’t know how China and Russia feel about the situation. I mean we might get a real cold war. With Iran+Afghanistan+Iraq, joining a former Soviet+China block…

        I mean state power is based on two things: size of industrial population, and access to resources.

        China almost matches the US in working population (the rest of China’s population are rural farmers). Now you have Europe and Japan in that block + South Korea, maybe Indonesia.

        On the other hand Russia + Soviet Republics + Middle East + China.+ more from Southeast Asia. Might be a little smaller population, but plenty of room for growth, and lots of resources.

      • Bruce says:

        The Iranian rial collapsed yesterday. The problem for them is they’re no better economic managers than eurocrats are. Worse actually. Iran has persisted in heavily subsidising gasoline despite having to import most of it. This is in a country with one of the largest petroleum production on Earth…but few refineries.

        So hyperinflation could well do what the Israelis probably aren’t able to.

        Also Khamenei’s faction succeeded in arresting Ahmadinejad’s media guy. Ahmadinejad is politically done for. There’s no way he can influence the upcoming elections meaningfully.

        So maybe if the US just keeps sanctions tight and Israel keeps the pressure on everyone maybe the situation with Iran will resolve itself peacefully. Iran will never admit to losing the contest, but so long as they don’t nuke Tel Aviv we’re probably OK.

        I should add that a slowdown in China helps this since it reduces their need for Iranian oil. And lowers the crude price that Iran can get for what it can sell. Hyperinflation just makes the equation even worse for them. Poor blighters.

  7. Suyts:
    “Cuba is poor but happy?”

    Well I’ve been there 3 or 4 times. I’d definitely say that it is a poor country. Not people starving in the street poor. But you know not a lot of ipods and new cars. But yes people are reasonably happy. I mean you can look at statistics of what would make you happy, education, health care, low violence, etc. Of course income is low, but it’s a poor country, so that goes without saying.

  8. Suyts:
    “bij, nearly all of the commenters here are very well informed. I just post blogs to learn from them.”

    I knew you guys were well informed but I didn’t know that extended to knowledge of foreign policy issues in such detail. The average person couldn’t care less (or know less) about foreign affairs…

    Bijan

  9. Hi Dirk!

    “At the moment Cuba survives due to Chavez’ help. They’re as solid as the DDR was shortly before its collapse.”

    That might be true, but that implies something that is insane! Cuba supported by Chavez is more stable than a lot of the other Latin American countries supported by the US. Remember the US tried to support the non-democratic overthrow of Chavez and failed.

    • DirkH says:

      “That might be true, but that implies something that is insane! Cuba supported by Chavez is more stable than a lot of the other Latin American countries supported by the US.”

      I guess the Castro brothers have the better firing squads.

      ” Remember the US tried to support the non-democratic overthrow of Chavez and failed.”

      I don’t remember. Did they?

      • ” Remember the US tried to support the non-democratic overthrow of Chavez and failed.”

        The only part of that statement that I think is even potentially controversial is the “non-democratic part”. Strike that if you want. But sill US support is there in the record.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt

        • DirkH says:

          Well, when even the wikipedia can’t find anything it’s conjecture.

        • Well, when even the wikipedia can’t find anything it’s conjecture.

          Look the US supported the coup vocally and other means too. It may have not have taken military action and maybe it supplied no arms or funding for arms, but just US avowed support is of value. People in 2nd world and 3rd world countries know what happens when they choose a government that the US does not like (Iran, Cuba).

          “The coup was publicly condemned by Latin American nations (the Rio Group presidents were gathered together in San José, Costa Rica, at the time, and were able to issue a joint communiqué) and international organizations. The United States and Spain quickly acknowledged the de facto pro-US Carmona government, but ended up condemning the coup after it had been defeated.”

          So the international community condemns. The US and Spain recognize the coup immediately (before the dust settles). Huge propaganda victory to hear on the TV that the coup was successful (the coup organizers owned the private media in the country and did that, and either knocked out or almost knocked out the state station).

      • “I guess the Castro brothers have the better firing squads.”

        Perhaps true, but they use them less. People are not gunned down in the street routinely. I mean there’s a booming tourist industry (sadly one of two or three industries…). Ok there is definitely threat of force, but it is definitely less overtly violent than Mexico, where even Canadian tourists get shot up by the thugs that work for the major drug dealers.

        • DirkH says:

          “Perhaps true, but they use them less. People are not gunned down in the street routinely. ”

          They put them in jail first.

          “I mean there’s a booming tourist industry (sadly one of two or three industries…).”

          Let’s look…

          Ok, they might make some money with that.

        • ““Perhaps true, but they use them less. People are not gunned down in the street routinely. ”

          They put them in jail first.

          That sounds terrible and it is. But you have to compare it to the options. There are cases in other countries where paramilitary forces, castrate people and nail their balls to their forehead and put the bodies in a public square to eliminate dissent.

          Political prisons, are a million times better than political purges (note Iran has both, like the Soviet Union, like the Nazis, but of course purges come in waves).

          Cuba has help to avoid facing that problem because of the US taking those people in, can’t refuse asylum for opposition to official state enemy… I guess Iran must benefit too, but in that case Europe I think picks up a lot of them. Who are then sometimes assassinated in Europe…

    • Bruce says:

      A big reason Cuba is still communist is that the Canadians thumbed their noses at the US over Cuban nickel production (eg link). I work in nickel and other metals, its been a source of secret amusement for decades. The US can’t do much about it, but since nickel and sugar prices haven’t been great the Cuban government only has just enough to survive on. I suspect the US is happy about this as they don’t want the place to turn into another North Korea with nothing to lose. So they keep the squeeze on and wait for mortality to catch up with the Castro’s.

      I might add the US was quite fierce to Aussie mining companies some years ago when we were looking to do some work in Cuba. All the Aussie companies had to pull out. But the US can afford to annoy Australia more than it can afford to annoy Canada, who has a very long border with them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s