Last night I caught a clip of Fareed Zakaria’s show on CNN. I’d been watching much more important things–pro football–but I can’t stand the ads on AFN (American Forces Network) so I channel surf when I have to. I’ve had mixed thoughts about Zakaria, primarily because i felt he pandered a bit to the Left when things were going badly in Iraq. All in all though, I think I like him and appreciate his opinions.
Zakaria was talking about the current state of world economics. He listed three factors that have complicated the problems America and Europe Face.
1) An aging population. As people in Western nations age and retire, they need ever increasing money from the retirement system. The amount of young people in the work force whom pay taxes which support those retirement systems are dwindling. The crisis in Greece resulted from primarily two factors: The death spiral birth rates which cannot replenish the workforce and a lack of any economic growth.
2) Advancing technology. Zakaria contends that technology improves efficiency to such a degree that employers no longer need to employ as many people. I’m not convinced this is the issue that Zakaria believes. First, the unemployment rate in the US effectively doubled in about three years. This had nothing to do with advancing technology. Secondly, while it may take fewer people to make a single pair shoes than it used to, manufacturers make more pairs of shoes. Then those shoes make their way to every corner of the world, something that could not happen before technology multiplied the power of the individual person. Technology, in my opinion, has not lessened the need for workers, because more production and distribution is now required and expected of the individual–and that’s because of technology. Corporations look not only for efficiency, but more production. As I used to joke when I was a police officer: The advanced technology available to police did not make their jobs easier, it only upped the expectation for productivity from the department and increased the amount of evidence required to get a conviction.
3) Globalization. Globalization allows employers to outsource labor.
While all of these things have some impact, I think that Zakaria skips over the cultural shift occurring throughout America. The cultural war inside the US is tearing it apart; the “have-nots” now expect success be handed to them. Moreover, multiculturalism is instigating conflict. The West is now like a man who walks around grinding his teeth all the time, but he can’t figure out why he does it. He feels an internal stress that he finds inexplicable. That stress is the breaking down of trust, the great binder of all societies. Samuel Huntington said that culture is made up of two things: Religion and language. These two things breed trust.
The economists can see the technical reasons for the financial problems in the US and Europe. But as our culture rips apart, the experts will find it more and more difficult to implement the changes necessary to prevent self-destruction. Europe will disintegrate before America, but the weakening of America will accelerate Europe’s insolvency. The Demographic numbers in Europe are undeniable–and they cannot be changed in our lifetimes, or in the next. Germany’s birthrate per woman is 1.42, [CIA World Fact Book, 2010] which is a world away from the 2.1 births per woman required merely to sustain a population. But 1.42 doesn’t tell the whole story, because that number is significantly bolstered by immigrant birthrates, particularly Muslim birthrates on the order of 7 per female. The Germans brought in many Turkish people in the 1970s because the workforce was significantly undermanned. Such is the case throughout Europe, where Thatcher’s prediction of government running out of other people’s money have come true: more old people on the retirement system and fewer young people to work and provide taxes. Greece’s birthrate’s are even lower and the country imploded. Italy is next: Witness that country’s anemic 1.32 birthrate. Bye bye bistro.
Democracy is a tool for change and in Democracy, anything can change. Voters whom bring third or second world cultural views to Europe will change Europe. They already have.
We are living the classic Chinese curse. We are living in interesting times. We can now see for ourselves how Rome fell, and recognize that it fell on its own sword. The problems in America are evident in everything from America’s economic woes to it’s inability to defeat a band of toothless dirt farmers in Afghanistan.
The election of Barack Obama has hastened America’s demise, but it is not the cause. His election was a symptom of the changes brought upon the country. As Pat Buchanan will outline in his upcoming book: The Suicide of a Superpower, America and Europe are fracturing upon racial lines. Blacks in America voted for Barack Obama at a 24:1 ratio, primarily because of his African American heritage. The more we have talked about race in America, the more racially divided we have become. While laws do protect minorities more than they did in the past, the level of distrust along racial divides is as great as ever.
As the culture shift occurs, the new demography continues to vote itself a bigger chunk of the welfare pie. And it’s only just begun. The birthrate issues in Europe are virtually irreversible. There is simply no arguing the math. The only argument is that people can change the way they think and vote. But if we think that entire cultures suddenly change the way they think without a catastrophe as the motivator, we should look over our history books again. The decline of the West is inevitable at this point. The question is, What does that mean for the rest of the world? It is not the death of democracy we are witnessing, only it’s little talked about dark side.
Have you noticed something since the Stanley McChrystal debacle? Suddenly, Afghanistan isn’t the Necessary War. Not only isn’t it the Necessary War, it’s become Unwinnable. Catastrophic. Leftist media commentary on Afghanistan is bringing back memories of Iraq. The pundits are scouring the news for dead civilians.
If one were to believe the commentary since the Michael Hastings article, he’d think that the Taliban doubled its strength, our troops are in full retreat, slowing only enough to bomb a few schools, take pot shots at scurrying civilians and sip some Red Bull.
It offends the Left–deeply–that people in the military may say bad things about civilian leadership. They cringe at the thought of someone making fun of the Vice President’s name, but shrug when soldiers are blown up. That’s what soldiers are supposed to do, afterall. Blow up. See, the military deeply offends them. But they were willing to stand behind this war, if only to get their guy elected. But they’ll never make it their guy’s war.
Now, they say, Afghanistan is not a just war. We’re just killing civilians, building a couple of roads, and we just can’t get rid of the Taliban. The Left loves the idea of a bunch of jihadist rednecks making us look stupid. They think Americans are stupid.
But we’re not. In fact, if we look at history, we’ve done far better than anyone else in The Graveyard of Empires. In the 1st Anglo-Afghan War (1839-1842), the English decided to pack up and leave with their 4500 troops and 12000 civilians. By the time they got out of town, they had exactly 1 soldier left. That’s not a misprint. One dude made it out alive. His name was DR. William (Give me a beer, please!) Brydon. Well, there are conflicting stories about approximately 50 people surving and being taken into captivity to be released later. But he was the only person to make the trip from Kabul to Jalabad and survive more than a couple of days.
But America’s pretty much done everything it set out to do. Here’s what our armed forces have accomplished:
Eliminated the al-Qaeda elements .
Removed the Taliban from power.
Set up a government friendly to the West. Oh but it’s so corrupt. Yes, it is. What do you think about the Turkish government? How about Russia, China? Still better than the Taliban.
Massively increased infrastructure.
The same types that silently cheered at our apparent impending destruction in Iraq are up to their old tricks again. They talk about Just War. But the Noam Chomskys of the world would not pick up a rifle no matter how just the war.
Afghanistan’s not worth billions, but no one can rightly say we haven’t made progress and that the Taliban can’t be defeated. Yes, there’s more work to be done. And Afghanistan will look pretty much like it does today when we start pulling out in a year. But Afghanistan looks much different now than it did 10 years ago when we began this effort.
According to this report, the Whitehouse has banned the use of the word Islam when it comes to describing or reporting Islamic terrorists.
This doctrine was proven true, when in the Pentagon’s report on Major Hasan’s assassination of 13 US Soldiers could not even mention the fact that Hasan was a fundamentalist Islamic, or that Islam was a prime, motivating factor in his crime. Here is a man who made contact with al-Qaeda officials approximately 20 times, yelled the name of his Muslim god as he repeatedly drilled lead into men he swore to fight and die with–if need be. Major Hasan was some Soldier’s last hope. He treated people with PTSD who have fought in our wars. He betrayed them. He betrayed his nation. If not Islam, what was his motivation?
The coffins of Soldiers killed by Major Hasan
What a slap in the face to the Soldiers who sought psychiatric care from the Army. Instead of worrying about damaged warriors who put their life on the line, the Pentagon and this administration were worried about offending people sworn to kill us.
The reflexive argument is: Well, just because Timothy McVeigh declared he was a Christian, doesn’t mean all Christians want to be mass murderers.
Is this where we’ve come? Do we not know by instinct whom the enemy is? Sure, it is not all Islamic peoples. This is a Great Strawman set up by people who’ve never been in a real conflict. We don’t–and never have–targeted all Islamic people. We’ve protected them when they were the victims of genocide. Does anyone remember Bosnia? Kosovo?
We are targeting the men whom are targeting us, and they happen to be Muslims. If you are Muslim, and are not committed to jihad against the United States, then you are not our enemy. Is it not that simple? Can we not see the degrees between one, lone bomber in Oklahoma City two decades ago, and the onrushing wave of thousands of sworn jihadists? How does the label of Christian terrorist stand against Muslim terrorist? About 15,000 dead people since 2001 is the difference. But our incompetant Secretary of Homeland Security worries about backlash against Muslims. Like that’s the way Americans act. She believes that the average American is a raving red-neck with a 2nd grade education, a trunk-load of ammunition and an urge to kill people with mocha-colored skin. I got news for ya, Janet.
And yet, General George Casey, Army Chief of Staff had this to say after Hasan mowed down his own (we thought) brothers:
“What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here.”
Diversity? Who joined the Army because of diversity? Most people joined the military because of sameness. They hoped that all of the people that they worked with respected America and its values. They knew that each person standing and fighting beside them had raised their right hand and promised to die before giving up the Republic. They joined not because they hoped everyone was different, but because–despite the differences– everyone could function as a team. General Casey said it outright: Being different is more important than the safety and integrity of the Soldier’s unit. General Casey was saying exactly what he thought this administration wanted him to say. Because Democrats are obsessed with diversity.
Who was the enemy in Germany in 1943? Can we call them Nazis? I’m sure not every person registered tot he Nazi Party actually picked up a rifle and shot at our troops.
In 1864, who was the Union Army fighting? Was it ok to call them Rebels? Or did that just make them fight harder and create more enemies?
What exactly would it take to be able to call the majority of modern-day terrorists, Islamic?
Here’s the ironic thing: The terrorists want us to know that they are acolytes of Islam. That’s why they plead guilty in most of the cases against them. They state clearly that they want the West to clearly understand that they knew what they were doing and that they are proud to be fighting in the name of Allah.
And yet the current administration takes the course of an ostrich; it buries its head and hopes its enemies won’t see its gigantic, bulbous body. We’ll drone on endlessly about Guantanomo. Our elites will smack their lips over lattes in smug agreement. But when Soldiers die, Amnesty International is nowhere to be found.
We can expect that the platitudes will keep flying. Political Correctness is worth dying for to some. But it’s an insult to the intellectually honest.
Steele’s comment, that the war is Obama’s war, have the the people at MSNBC smelling blood. Jon Stewart, too. They say the statement is not historically correct. Really? You mean to tell me that as President Obama couldn’t order all of our troops to immediately withdraw? When does anything that is now happening become the responsibility of this administration?
Than I heard Pat Buchanan talking today. I agreed with him, that the Republicans should not squash dissent. But then he said that the Republicans should not let the party be defined by people like Charles Krauthammer. Pat, Pat, Pat. If you read Krauthammer–who’s the most read conservative writer for a reason– you’d know that he was against the surge in Afghanistan. And I was, too. But I’m not against identifying the real enemy–fundamentalist Islam, unlike our own government, whom in a recent report on Major Hassan ‘s assassination of 12 US Soldiers, couldn’t be bothered to mention that radical Islam may have been his primary motivation. I guess slaughtering a dozen unarmed people whom you don’t know while screaming “Alahu Akbar!” (God is Great!) was the result of Tourrette’s Syndrome.
Jon Stewart gave his usual amazed look while talking about Steele’s comments, saying that Steele has no clue about the history of the war. Well, wasn’t this exactly what Obama ran on? Didn’t he say repeatedly that we needed to exit Iraq immediately? So the argument that Obama has to stay in Afghanistan because leaving would hurt American prestige and strategic position doesn’t hold water.
There’s a saying in the Army: Only do what your rank can handle. It’s safe to say that if 4-Stars can’t handle something, nothing can.
When I first caught wind of the article in Rolling Stone, my first thought was: Why are Soldiers allowed to talk to journalists from Rolling Stone? I was absolutely astounded when I found that General McChrystal gave “unprecedented access” to Rolling Stone journalist Michael Hastings.
Reading the article, I immediately catch a whiff of burnt cannabis in the air, and a tone that can’t wait to rile up some muck. It reminds me to some extent of the works of another Rolling Stone journalist named Evan Wright of Generation Kill fame. The style is slightly raunchy, almost in the Beat Poet genre. In revels in pointing out the basest aspects of human nature. The style feels obligated to quote only when the language is profane. And let’s consider the title:
The Runaway General
Stanley McChrystal, Obama’s top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House
Seems obvious that Hastings wanted to stir some people up. And he succeeded.
This is not to say that it is not true and an excellent piece of journalism. Afterall, even McChrystal has not denied the truth of the article’s content. And I must also commend Michael Hastings’ conclusions in regards counterinsurgency and the fact that he quotes highly regarded critics of CI, such as Douglas Macgregor.
But aside from the journalistic qualities of the piece, let’s think about the “outrage” that’s flowed from many in the press and resulted in McChrystal’s resignation.
First, the accusations of McChrystal being insubordinate are overblown. I can find nothing in the article that points to McChrystal making contemptuous remarks toward the President. On one occasion McChrystal does tell a subordinate that he found President Obama to be unprepared for a meeting and intimidated by the military. Few can doubt that President Obama may find the military slighty intimidating. Many people in the military find the military intimidating. If it was McChrystal’s opinion that the President was unprepared for a meeting, can he not say so to a subordinate when asked how the meeting went?
If people in the upper ranks of our military want to know what people really think in the military ranks, they should visit a bathroom stall on a military installation; the only place a Private doesn’t have to kiss ass is while he’s wiping his own.
But as the great line in ” A few Good Men” goes: “You can’t handle the truth!”
I’ve always been intrigued by Stanley McChrystal. I see a bit of him in myself; someone who’s a bit impolitic at times, but greatly values personal toughness. But I never thought that McChrystal was the right man for the job. We need someone a bit more intellectual, and Petraeus fits the bill perfectly. Actually, I can’t think of a military bill that Patraeus wouldn’t fit. If Patraeus is the wizard in the high tower, McChrystal is Conan with a bloody sword. Two completely different styles, but both effective in their own way. McChrystal seemed better suited for the black art of hunter–killer missions and as commander of JSOC in Iraq, he helped shatter the leadership of al-Qaeda In Iraq.
I support President Obama’s decision. He has the right to pull McChrystal for any reason, not just this. And when the President said: “I welcome debate but not division”, I thought he was spot on. McChrystal should have known better. Regardless of the motives of Rolling Stone, McChrystal gave them access and Hastings managed to find people who wanted to show off. No doubt McChrystal’s underlings thought they had a confidant in Hastings. But they’re still dumb.
So now the show is handed to the Master. The man who against so much doubt turned the tide in a collapsing Iraq. If anyone can turn Afghanistan around, Patraeus can.
Suddenly, even the hardcore Obama acolytes are calling for the President’s head. The government should be doing more, they say.
It’s wholly unfair to Obama to blame any part of this spill on him, just as it was unfair to Bush to blame him for Katrina. The slow response after Katrina shows the fundamental problem with relying on governmental agencies to be quick and agile when disaster strikes. It is not that Big Government is evil on any metaphysical level. It is the fact that it is well, Big. The bigger an entity, the more ponderous it becomes.
The German army during WWII is commonly thought to have won its early battles because it had superior technology. Some think that its Panzer tanks were superior to English and French machines. In fact, the French possessed arguably the world’s strongest army and both Englisha nd Frech armor was better than Germany’s. It was the way the Germans employed those tanks that made the difference. After WWI, Germany carefully studied its failures and decided that increasing the decision making capabilities of its small unit leaders would make the German fighting force must more tactically flexible. Instead of a squad leader calling all the way up to higher headquarters merely to be told to execute a flanking maneuver, the squad leader was trained to recognize the situation in which the enemy’s flank appeared vulnerable and then flank and destroy him.
So the German Army, instead of being micro managed from a singular person who had no feel for the actual tactical situation, gave its NCOs vast powers. It also gave its officers the authority to disobey orders should a situation require it.
And so we find, that with any large, centralized government agencies, a slowness of movement. Too many moving parts. The entity, like Hannibal’s war elephants, is powerful when you can get it into the fight, it’s getting it there that presents the biggest problem. It’s not useless or evil unless we make it so. We must understand its limits and we must also know when to pare red tape when it hurts us. Some regulation is severely slowing the ability of foreign nations to help us in the cleanup effort.
If we know the limits of government, if we understand its tendency to grow itself, than we can make it better. If we continue to act like an artist who believes that making a sculpture means adding instead of carving away, we will limit our own government’s ability to serve its own people. And that’s the only reason for a government to exist.
A country cannot remain a superpower without a powerful military. And we simply cannot maintain our current military’s level of power if the entitlements continue to multiply.
Folks, this is yet another beginning of another end in Afghanistan. Karzai got caught with his pants down when the UN found massive amounts of fraud–almost all of it in Karzai’s favor–in the election. He’s deathly afraid that America will hold him accountable for reigning in corruption, the Afghan pass time. Sources say Karzai’s incensed at Barack Obama’s statements that Afghanistan is not making progress quickly enough, hinting that the American presence there is coming to an end.
Karzai entertains Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, pulls out the classic Islamist excuse of American conspiracy, then quips about joining the Taliban–all in less than a month.
Only a Junior International Relations student could believe at this point that any hope remains in making Afghanistan into a stable, viable state. Expect things to get a lot worse.
Since the new wave of surges in Afghanistan, I have been critical of the war’s continuation, based on the following:
Afghanistan does not hold the strategic value some would have us believe. Al-Qaeda–unlike more advanced terror orgs. like Hamas and Hezbollah–does not need official state sanction or geographic boundaries in which to operate. It more resembles the Mob than a post-modern army.
After almost nine years of war in Afghanistan, the fight has become one of inertia rather than need. We are there because we were there before–year after year.
Our troops are not allowed to take the fight to the enemy. While Liberal debunkers of war love the idea of winning hearts and minds, they forget that counterinsurgency is only one facet of the jewel; kill those who refuse to surrender, endear yourself to those who will help. Simple, except to the intellectual, who only finds solace in labyrinthine theories.
Our military needs a rest. While this in and of itself is not enough a reason to quit the fight, the lack of strategic value of Afghanistan couple with a massive increase in soldier suicides, is. The suicide rate in the Army has doubled since 2004, and now doubles that of the civilian population. Some of this can be attributed to the “cascade effect”; media attention and talking too much about it can cause some to consider suicide as an option. But I see trickle-down stress in the military. Like a husband home from a stressful job, the entire Army family feels the strain when an NCO with PTSD comes home from the fight.
The military’s manpower may be needed elsewhere. Iran presents a much more dangerous foe at this time than Afghanistan.
Some think that Obama should do whatever the commanders on the ground say he should do. I disagree. Afterall, General Douglas McCarther wanted to nuke China during the Korean War. The president is the Commander in Chief, it his his right–nay, his duty–to consider a war’s options using his own brain. It’s up to the generals to present him with the options and what the likely outcome of each will be, then to carry out the president’s orders.
Some also say that Obama is trying to appease all sides with his plan: Give troops to appease the Right, give a pull-out date to appease the Left. Perhaps. But this time, in his appeasement, he may have gotten the big picture right. It must be said that an immediate pull out of all our assets would probably send the wrong message to the entire world. It would appear that we are running away from a fight. Some say that we should not give a withdrawal date, as it telegraphs our intentions to the enemy. In most circumstances I would agree. But the Taliban is not a real army. It’s ability to unify and take advantage of tactical situations is limited. To them, a hand-held radio is a magical relic. So a timetable works to our advantage in this case; it says to the world: “We’re leaving on our own terms, just like we said 18 months ago, not because we lost the war.”
A timetable also motivates the Afghan government. Nothing gets the juices flowing like knowing the sugar-daddy Americans are about to go, the money faucets are about to be shut off, and the Taliban will be knocking on your back door if you don’t do what needs to be done. Survival is the best drill sergeant.
The only concern I have, is what the mission of the additional 30,000 troops will be. They should be used boldly and decisively and the operational tempo should be relentless. Then–when their duties are finished– let them come home to stay.
I’m hiding in Honduras
I’m a desperate man
Send lawyers, guns and money
The shit has hit the fan ~Lawyers, guns and money; Warren Zevon
The stock argument for our current involvement in Afghanistan is that we must prevent the country from becoming a training haven, as it was in 2001, for al-Qaeda operatives.
MuhammedAtta moves through aPortland Maine airport on 091101
This argument no longer holds water. And when we look at the actual situation in 2001, we can see why a full scale invasion was not needed.
Here, in President George Bush’s speech to Congress in 2001, he lays out the US’ demands of the Taliban government. The Taliban is never asked to leave power; only to hand over terrorists, allow the US access for inspection and close training camps.
Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough. The United States respects the people of Afghanistan — after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid — but we condemn the Taliban regime.
It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists.
By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder. And tonight the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban:
– Deliver to United States authorities all of the leaders of Al Qaeda who hide in your land.
– Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens you have unjustly imprisoned.
– Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country.
– Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. And hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities.
– Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.
These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion.
The Taliban must act and act immediately.
They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate. I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It’s practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.
That was then. Al-Qaeda no longer needs open ground training camps at which to film its propaganda. Indeed, armed drones have made such terror play grounds an anachronism. What al-Qaeda needs is people, money and hate.
Terrorists training for large scale attacks in remote caves is a myth. The modern terrorist must be computer savvy, and blend in with a targeted populace. Major Hasan was only able to kill 13 US soldiers on a military base because he was one of them. The most dangerous jihadists are educated people, not those wielding rusty Kalashnikovs and sporting 3rd grade reading abilities.
The very event that spurred the invasion of Afghanistan–The 9-11 attacks–was carried out primarily by jihadists who trained and planned the attacks in Western countries. The Hamburg Cell, led by Muhammed Atta, met, discussed jihadist motivations and made contact wth al-Qaeda, all while German intelligence surveilled their two-bedroom apartment on Marienstrasse. Atta received his education at an American university in Cairo,Egypt. Bin Laden chose the bulk of the hijackers from a group of usual suspects: Unmarried, young, poorly educated. All but one hailed from Saudi Arabia. These men did not need to think–they only needed to wield box cutters, then die. They did train for a period in Afghanistan, but they employed no serious technical skills gained in this training.
According to the 9-11 Comission Report, between $400,000 and $500,000 was spent training and preparing for the 9-11 attacks. The majority of this training was carried out in Western countries,using Western institutions. In other words, we need only follow the money.
President Obama should seriously reconsider the poor arguments made for continuing or escalating the war in Afghanistan. The war is not “Over There”. It’s right here.
Then there’s Joy Behar: “He (Barack Obama) is a little too smart for America in a certain way.”
See, America. These people don’t like you. They think Barack Obama is too brilliant for you, even though you put him in office. I suspect you’re smart enough to remove him after he proves himself to be of perfectly average capacity.
A wise man once said that you should never enter a war that you don’t have the will to win. President Obama finds himself the unfortunate elected of a party which hasn’t possessed the will to win a fight since WWII and that thinks the only good war America’s ever fought was the Civil War.
Obama is now left with no good options. Should he escalate the troop levels in Afghanistan, he will anger a large portion of the people that voted for him–about 51% of Democrats are strongly against another surge in Afghanistan.
More troops would be good–if we planned to use them correctly. We won’t, because we don’t believe anymore that we can win wars by killing the enemy. So we’ll again win virtually every tactical engagement and lose the war. We want true fairy tales: We can win wars by just talking. No, we can’t. The talking’s long been over by the time bullets start flying.
We’ve surged three times since the Afghan war started, and Obama can still only blame Bush for the situation there now. Obama must take responsibility for this war. The Bush administration rightly placed Afghanistan on the back burner, while continuing to fight in Iraq. There’s simply almost nothing to be gained by an over application of resources there. Using Afghanistan as a vote-getting pry bar has backfired on Obama: He’s now locked in to a war that he cannot escape from. His hyperbole has him trapped. The only chance of ending the war–short of simply removing all US involvment (not an option), is politically incorrect warfare–the only kind that’s ever proven effective against hardened insurgents.
And here’s the kicker: Other than Iraq, the only full-scale insurgency that America’s fought–The Philipine-American War– points in the exact opposite direction of the one our fighting forces head in now: Brutality works. Sad but true. When the First Philipine Republic’s insurgent muslims commenced to guerrilla warfare, America upped the ante and revved up her gatling guns. American soldiers stopped taking prisoners and started burning villages. After hearing of American ferocity, many Filipinos began surrendering instead of fighting. And the Filipino insurgents outnumbered today Taliban by 3 or 4 to 1. Yet we won that war in 3 years.
If we’re won’t fight to win–and we won’t–we should pull out most of the troops, stop telling lies about building a better Afghanistan, and be done with it. We should never again enter into a war that history tells us only overwhelming force can win.
It appears 25,000 poorly trained and equipped fighters will defeat this administration. Hillary in 2012?
Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!~Mark Anthony, Julius Caesar–The Play
Sometimes I wonder: Am I nuts, possessed of extreme hubris, simply churlish?
Maybe. I think about this war in Afghanistan, and I see all kinds of experts talking, a lot of people who have been to war college and many more who’ve treaded the baneful lands of Afghanistan and Iraq as soldiers. Why is it that I seem to disagree so vehemently with most of them on how the Afghan war should be prosecuted? We’re making the same mistakes we made in Iraq.
Last night I’m watching the news. CBS I think. There’s a piece on the counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan. Young Marines are shown on patrol. They’re interviewed and they relive moments when they had the opportunity to kill Taliban, but because the insurgents hid amongst the populace, no air strikes could be called in.
Then my jaw dropped. First, the journalist is interviewing a Marine Colonel. He asks the Marine how many Taliban his men have killed.
“I have no idea, it’s not important. It’s not a measure of my success,” came the reply. “If I kill 1000 of the enemy but kill 2 civilians, I’ve lost.” Is that the standard we’ve placed upon ourselves? Get out, then, and stop letting politicians and whiny libs who are in no danger themselves use a false morality to make it easier for soldiers to die. His quote was promptly followed by a picture of Marines saluting the rifles and helmets of seven of their fallen comrades. The Colonel doesn’t care how many of the enemy he kills. Does he care how many of us the enemy kills?
These are the words of retired Marine, John Bernard. Bernard’s son, Joshua Bernard, killed in action in Afghanistan, the photo of his dying moment caught on film and published against his father’s wishes by the AP. John Bernard writes to Maine Senator Susan Collins:
“We’ve abandoned them in this Catch-22 where we’re supposed to defend the population, but we can’t defend them because we can’t engage the enemy that is supposed to be the problem,…”If you’re going to try to go over there as a peacekeeper, you’re going to get your butt handed to you, and that’s what’s going on right now.”
Ok, I think. What is your measure of success? I’m assuming he’d say something like: When the violence drops and the government is able to sustain security for the country. To which I’d ask: How will this happen?
Then an Army general is being interviewed. It gets even worse. He’s asked how many years it will take to win the war in Afghanistan. He rightly states that the average counterinsurgency takes 14 years to be successful. He assures the interviewer that the mission can be successful.
What the hell is going on here? Am I insane? Am I the only person who thinks this is the dumbest rhetoric ever? Now a bunch of high ranking officers get interviewed say exactly what you’d expect them to say. We can do it. They don’t even present me with good arguments. It’s just: We’re the experts, trust us.
No. All my instincts tell me this is wrong and we can’t win using counterinsurgency. I guess as a soldier I’m just supposed to salute smartly and drive on.
If we want to win, we have to fight and we need to fight with a lot of power. That’s the way it works folks. I’m sorry if I hurt someone’s feeling about how war can really be won by just winning hearts and minds, but it just ain’t so. Find one war where that’s happened. A real shooting war, then throw in religious zealotry as one sides motivation for fighting in the first place.
We used to know how to fight. We got lost somewhere after Desert Storm. We haven’t adapted. It is the terrorists and extremists who have adapted to post-modern warfare, in which media manipulation holds the power of a hundred JDAMs. The terrorists have evolved while we’ve stood in line waiting for the world to change to our advantage, and it’s refusing to do so. The Taliban stole our tactical advantages and we’ve let them keep it. Instead of stepping up the intensity of our fighting, we backed off and hoped CNN would be appreciative. And it is appreciative, because dead soldiers makes great news.
Our soldiers die and we comfort ourselves with terms like hearts and minds. We tie their hands and shake our heads when we see new pine boxes unloaded from C-130s, each one draped in Ol Glory. Our men call for fire support and strafing runs and get denied for political reasons. That’s never ok. We’re choking our own warrior.
Mr. President, if you’re listening. Admiral Mullen, Mr. Gates, General McChrystal, I humbly ask you to lend an ear to a lowly enlisted man. Yet a man who’s seen his share of human conflict and who does his best to see the world clearly. Unleash the dogs of war. Hunt the Taliban and destroy them. Our men will not wantonly kill innocents. We have the tools, now we need a dose of harsh, historical reality; warriors fight. And they prefer to do it with two hands. Let them fight, or just bring them home to their parents, wives and children. The military life is difficult enough, let them at least have the comfort of home if you won’t let them do what American soldiers do best.
Americans like to win. Our politicians seem immeasurably feckless at this moment. We Surged in April. Negative result. Obama just ok’d 14,000 more support troops, much less than the 40,000 requested by McChrystal. This will only delay defeat, because we’re ashamed of our power. Shame destroys. It’s a shame created by hypocrite and theoretical social tinkerers, willing to sacrifice our men in battlefield petri dishes. If these politicians had an ounce of common sense, any connection with real people going to real jobs, struggling with real issues, they’d know that victory forgives all. If we win, and win in good time, all the media’s photos and film of burned out houses and reports of dead civilians won’t mean a thing. It’ll be forgotten. The disappointed malcontents will go home, saddened by yet another American victory. It’s the usual suspects, so I’d advise that we ignore their whining and get on with business.
Adoring Disciple: “What shall we name him, Barack? He’s lonely and needs a home. And people so love a pet war. They hate bad wars, like Iraq. You know, the kind that drags on forever and kills kids.”
Obama: “Lets name him: ‘The Necessary War.’ Chuck a couple of troops at him, see if he’s hungry.”
Adoring Disciples: “Ok.”
A few months later….
Adoring Disciple: “Oh my! He is hungry! Look at him gobble those troops!”
Obama: (Concerned look) “Do we have a cage or at least a chain?”
Adoring Disciple: “No. Nothing. We do have more troops though. Seems The Necessary War was hungrier than anyone could have imagined.”
Obama: “Put him in the basement or something. People are going to get tired of this little beast pretty quickly.”
Adoring Disciple: “But you promised the children they could see him!”
Obama: “Put him away. This one likes the taste of kids, just like the last one did.”
Adoring Disciple: “The kids will be so disappointed. They believed in you, Barack. Not to mention how unhappy this cute little vote-getter will be, all the work he did for you making others look incompetant. Now, he’ll just go to town on you. Just keep throwing troops at him. Eventually he’ll get full. I think.”
Obama: “Alright. But figure out a way to make him disappear. Can we make glue out him? Gotta be something…”
Machiavelli: It is better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both.
When your enemies love you, be afraid.
At the UN’s General Assembly, Muammar Qadaffi, an uncomprimising madman, gushed: “We are happy and content if Obama can stay forever as the president of the United States!”
This should tell you what our enemies think of Obama. If he is weak or not is nearly moot. Perception of strength is a deterrant from aggression. No one fears Obama, and that’s cause for concern.
From the beginning, I’ve thought that Obama was merely a naive ideologue with good intentions, who happened to espouse a few left-of-center views. His downfall, I believed, was his liberality combined with his minority status, which attracted to him people much more dangerous and radical than Obama.
Now I think I was wrong. There have simply been too many instances of extremists with long ties to Obama, or that have been outed in his administration to simply brush it off as Obama’s naivete’. It seems clear now, that Obama is fully aware of his natural power to persuade. Robert Kaplan stated that Obama has finessed his way through life, able to bend people to his will with his oratory skills and charisma. Those skills and that charisma even had their effects on me, a serious doubter of Obama’s political agenda. All of Obama’s actions pointed to someone who is a radical. Reverend Wright; Bill Ayers; Van Jones; ACORN; Science Czar, John Holden. And of course the Obama voting record while he was a Senator for Illinois. But I–a doubter–came under the thrall of a master. He said all the right things in all the right ways, even when the facts stood starkly in opposition to his words. I knew that Obama lied when he said he didn’t know that Rev. Wright held anti-white racist views. But I was willing to forgive, thinking that because he had known Wright for so long and met him when he was young, that it was possible Wright had morphed into his current form over a period of years, and as Obama’s mentor and minister, it was only natural that Obama may protect him, even while severing ties. And Obama’s speech sounded so good…
I’m a firm believer in what my mother used to say about whom we associate with: Birds of a feather flock together. If we have doubts about a person’s character, we should begin to look at their friends and whom they hang out with. A single person may be able to hide their true nature for a while, but it’s unlikely that all of their friends can or will try to be something they’re not to cover for someone else. And why would they want to? After all, they befriended this person because they have things in common.
As each of these associates emerged, and their political beliefs hit the airwaves, I became aware of my own mesmerized state. There is no other answer that I can come to, except that Obama thinks like the outed radicals he has placed as his Czars, and like the organization that helped him get where he is today: ACORN. ACORN is an anti-capitalist organization. Its activists try to enlist as many people as possible to get on the government dole, as they believe this is a way of collapsing what they consider a corrupt system. Ironic that they admit the system is helping the poor even while ACORN tries to subvert it. Why would they so staunchly support Obama, if the organization didn’t think he would push their agenda?
Rich Uncle Pennybags seems to be a victim of Obamacare rationing
Supporter’s of Obama have attempted to create caricatures of those that oppose his measures. Just as they see every “capitalist” as Rich Uncle Pennybags from the game, Monopoly, they see those who disagree with Obama as redneck theocrats who see another Red Scare. But I think Obama knows Rome was not built in a day and it cannot be destroyed in a day for that matter. And while he may not be smiling connivingly while reciting Lenin’s, April Thesis before bedtime, it does seem he has a plan that takes this country in a distinctly different direction than it’s ever gone. And because we live in the greatest country in world history, I think that’s a very dangerous thing.
When one hears former president Jimmy Carter speak nowadays, it’s easy to come to the conclusion that he just wants attention. At least his memory’s good, though. He remembers the well that has given his party so much water: The Racism Well.
Mr. President. That well is dry and most people don’t care. You and your party have tried your agendas, winning your positions as a part of public backlash against unpopular actions of the previous Republican administration. But Americans tire of your actions quickly, and soon resent your attempts to tell them what victims they are. No, Mr. Carter. Americans are stronger than you think. And us and Canada are the least racist countries I know of.
Say something nice, Mr. President, about you’re country. While you’re at it, remind President Obama to do the same.
Perhaps I’m harping here; it’s worth harping for the lives of our soldiers and the reputation of our fighting forces. But stay there in what capacity? The intellectual dishonesty on display here is astounding. We are now fighting this war in th way that only a liberal Democrat could envision a war being fought: Without trying to kill the enemy. We have neutered ourselves twice, first by trying counterinsurgency tactics in a land that has very little infrastructure, and then by severely restricting our troops’ ability to fight back. The Taliban are simply not cooperating. They are fighting a hard, irregular war. We are playing catch up instead destroying the problem.
We have the best trained, best equiped soldiers in the world. Do not doubt that they are performing their given mission with the utmost competence and valor. They fight hard–something our NATO allies should learn to do. While NATO sits behind reinforced concrete walls in a “defensive posture”, our troops roam the barren countryside seeking contact with an enemy who knows the limits set upon our soldiers by politicians. We are simply not employing our troops correctly.
Opium is not the issue, either. Not in terms of the war. This is the fight against international terrorism, not a war on drugs. The problem is a lack of a Social Contract in Afghanistan. No honest observer can say that true change will come to Afghanistan in less than several decades–several decades of military intervention. This is simply not acceptable given the payback that America will receive.
The tired old statement that this is the fault of the Bush administration is a moot point, regardless of its truthfulness or lack thereof. And the longer Obama fails admit that we must kill our enemies and then leave, the more his opponents will have a valid argument that this mess is indeed his.
Machiavelli: It is better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both. 
Recent Comments