A piece from the beginning of the month, but even so.
A poll earlier this year showed Taliban support at 6%.
The national mood on the Afghanistan war has soured fast, and it's not hard to see why. American combat deaths have exceeded 100 for the summer, the recent Afghan election was tainted by accusations of intimidation and fraud, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen says the security environment there is "deteriorating."
Meanwhile, congressional leaders worry about the war's impact on the health-care debate and the Obama presidency more generally. Antiwar groups are starting to talk about "another Vietnam." Opposition is mounting to the current policy--to say nothing of possible requests for additional troops from the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
Continued on Page 49
#2
Read the article first, g(r)omgoru. The author blurb at the bottom says
Mr.Riedel chaired President Obama's review on Afghanistan and Pakistan policy.
He and his co-authors make the case that the big picture isn't nearly as dire as portrayed, and that General McChrystal should be given the resources he's asking for.
#3
"Another Viet Nam"
Yep, like idiotic RoE that won't allow the return of fire when women and children are present, even if they are loading the weapons or delivering the bombs. Political micro-managing of the military. Overlooking the drug trade that provides the Taliban's funds. Refusing to intervene in Iran while they harbor terrorists and continue to supply insurgents. Strictly observing national sovereignties during fighting when the borders were illogically drawn across tribal regions that observe Pashtunwali. The liberals hate the military and hamstring them anyway they can, throwing the US investment in blood and $ along with the Afghan people under the bus.
#4
Refusing to intervene in Iran while they harbor terrorists and continue to supply insurgents
I don't know that Iran is harboring Taliban as they had no love for them. They have been giving cash, material and encouragement in Iraq, though. Starting another front in this war would be . . . problematic at best.
Posted by: Jame Retief ||
09/13/2009 15:20 Comments ||
Top||
#5
No harboring, but someone in Iran is doing the supplying.
As far as Iran is concerned, it's already a two-front war albeit not a very hot one..
#1
Given the direction of Obama's America I'm not entirely certain whether our nation will stand with, or against, the forces of darkness when this storm finally breaks.
#3
This was interesting a decade ago. Sorry, but it misses the point. Nobody cared then, and fewer yet care now. We're in bigger trouble now, and need to realize that Europe has its own issues to deal with, which they won't, except maybe the French, while we sink into civil war. Hate to say it, but it needs saying.
#4
Buchanan cited the 20th Century, but he should have begun with the less popularly well known 19th Century.
In 1815, Europe had defeated Napoleon for the second time, in the first modern continental war. With peace came the reorganization of Europe, but it was the beginning of the end of the monarchical system of government.
Europe was at peace for 33 years before the pressure had become unbearable. In 1848, democratic revolutions happened in the vast majority of European nations. Those that escaped had mostly democratized earlier. After these subsided, the royals fought back against the democrats with counterrevolution.
Then the scene shifted to the United States, with its own Civil War. This led the US to discard Napoleonic tactics, which led the European armies to trench warfare in WWI.
But then back to Europe, with the unification of Germany in 1871, on the heels of defeating France in the Franco-Prussian War. The unification changed the balance of power in Europe, and made World War I almost inevitable.
This was so obvious that it started a massive military and naval buildup among all the powers. Much like the one we are seeing today.
And for the first time, the US was at the forefront of doing this.
After the turn of the century, Teddy Roosevelt mediated the Russo-Japanese War, with his Great White Fleet to enforce his decisions. Meanwhile, Britain and the other Asiatic and European powers re-aligned because of the Second Boer War in South Africa.
The US remained the wild card in the European fight, seeing with some justification little difference between England, Germany, France, and the other major belligerents. But England had one major edge: control over the communications cable to the US.
For this reason, pro-English and anti-German propaganda was all that was allowed through. The US quietly backed England, and though Germany warned the US to stop, it refused. So Germany began its policy of "unrestricted submarine warfare". The casus belli.
So is everyone preparing for the next major war? It is likely, with the expectation of China vs. the US and India. But there are no certainties. Until the end of WWI, when it ceased to exist, most everyone assumed that the Austro-Hungarian empire would be the next major European belligerent.
#7
The writer's point is that wars must be pursued into the loser's heartland, visiting on him the destruction he visited on others, until he surrenders unconditionally. Only by breaking the idea that in some infinitesimally tiny way he won something -- anything at all -- will that war not have to be refought within a generation. He writes this explicitly:
The Second World War was the unfinished business of the First World War; just as in our own time the second Iraq War was the unfinished business of the first.
Then he goes on to explain that we need to finish this thing started on 9/11, breaking the idea of Islam triumphant as we broke the idea of Germany triumphant (expressed by both the Kaiser and by Hitler) or Saddam Hussein triumphant. Europe, and European history are instructive but not actually the point of the piece.
#8
Then he goes on to explain that we need to finish this thing started on 9/11, breaking the idea of Islam triumphant as we broke the idea of Germany triumphant (expressed by both the Kaiser and by Hitler) or Saddam Hussein triumphant. Europe, and European history are instructive but not actually the point of the piece.
This is the most difficult thing to achieve. Germany was one nation, with a definite capital and a way to pound the people in it into submission.
Islam is many nations, with varying ideas of right and wrong, though many align well with the traditions that breed terrorists.
We need to be thoughtful in prosecuting this war against many nations. Yet we must not forget that we must defeat them, totally and without remorse.
Posted by: Jame Retief ||
09/13/2009 15:11 Comments ||
Top||
#9
JR is correct that it's more difficult to strike back at Islamic terror, but we DO know who the financiers and supporters are. A spate of nasty and public deaths among Saooodi royals, Pak Generals, etc. would be my first start
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/13/2009 15:37 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"Islam is many nations, with varying ideas of right and wrong, though many align well with the traditions that breed terrorists."
-there are many centers of gravity in varying degrees, and there are also critical vulnerabilities in the same. We need to find the low hanging fruit. Our own CV is that our people are too complacent and ignorant in a lot of cases to even realize there's a problem. I see a civil war as well.
YMMV, but interesting in any case, as are comments.
The challenge of the Post-9/11 World for America is summed up in one word. Deterrence. America got to 9/11 by bits and pieces, all the way back to Richard Nixon's decision not to retaliate for the Cold River assassination U.S. Ambassador to Sudan Cleo Noel Jr. and his charge d'affaires Curtis Moore, to the refusal of Bill Clinton to countenance punishing attacks on Afghanistan in retaliation for the 1998 Kenyan and Tanzanian US Embassy bombings by Al Qaeda.
Both Paleocons such as Pat Buchanan, and Liberals and Democrats such as Michael Moore, and Howard Dean argue that isolationism, and variations of anti-Israeli/anti-Jewish actions, will achieve American security. But as we look back on 9/11, and recall that awful day, what stands out is the failure to create deterrence for attack, and the lessons of those nations that have responded to the changed security environment of the post-Cold War, nuclear proliferation world we inhabit today.
Above all else, 9/11 could have been, much, much worse.
#1
The ultimate goal is grander than the overthrow of their respective ruling governments, which are merely the means to the end--it is an Islamic Ummah of global dimensions. Deterrence will not be achieved through nuclear disarmament, beginning with ours, either. This battle is ultimately good versus evil, and the evildoers must be eliminated. Education for all with the liberty to read and think for one's self will counter indoctrination but that is also opposed by Islamists. We need the likes of Dick Cheney and John Bolton in office and the Pelosi's and Obama's out but that is about as likely as preventing the next attack of even greater scale. Ultimately, it will be the coming of our Savior to deliver us from this evil and all we can do is pray right now.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
