"THE lion of the people will turn on you," warned Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, a former Taliban foreign minister, as we sipped green tea at his home in Kabul a few weeks ago. He noted that while Americans had been shocked by a series of spectacular insurgent attacks over the summer, the United States-led coalition faced a far greater danger than the resurgent Taliban: growing despair among average Afghans that their government is fundamentally illegitimate.
Every aspect of sound counterinsurgency strategy revolves around bolstering the government's legitimacy. When ordinary people lose their faith in their government, then they also lose faith in the foreigners who prop it up. The day that happens across Afghanistan is the day we lose the war.
With more than 230 military deaths since January, this year is on track to be the deadliest yet for the coalition in Afghanistan. July alone saw a brazen attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul, the deaths of nine Americans at a combat outpost in Nuristan and the killing of 10 French soldiers on the outskirts of Kabul. The response has been a growing consensus around sending two to four more combat brigades to Afghanistan -- 8,000 to 16,000 troops.
Continued on Page 49
#1
BIGNEWSNETWORK > PALIN, BIDEN: NUCLEAR PAKISTAN AND IRAN ARE A THREAT.
ION IRAN > WORLD IS SEEING THE EMERGENCE OF NEW REGIONAL POWERS + IRAN WILL NOT STOP URANIUM ENRICHMENT FOR FOREIGN FUEL SUPPLY [even iff guaranteed] + IRAN DOES NOT TRUST WEST FOR NUCLEAR COOPERATION + IRAN IS NOW SELF-SUFFICIENT IN MISSLES.
#2
shocked by a series of spectacular insurgent attacks
I'm American, and not shocked; nor would I call the attacks spectacular.
greater danger...growing despair among average Afghans that their government is fundamentally illegitimate.
Agree. By all accounts the government is corrupt and not very effectual. In other words, like every other Afghan government ever. The British couldn't fix it even at the height of their empire-building; the Russians couldn't fix it even with their casual regard for human life; how are we going to do it? We can't 'buy' success like in Iraq; we can't logistically support the force we would need to secure success the way did in South Korea or Germany; we don't have the national will to win the way we did in Japan; what's left? I suspect we should have declared 'victory' and left some time ago - and left some Special Ops units and Predators to continue the hunt for bin Laden et al.
#3
Agree Glenmore. More should study the Russian and British experiences and explain why we will be successful. A disaster looms. What would Bambi do if there were massacres of unsupplied US troops?
#4
Afghan unity is an illusion. From the beginning we should have supported the Tadjiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras for sustained old style campaigns against the Pushtun bigots. Let the world know that those who attack, or support the attack against, the United States will die in horrible ways and their lands resettled by their enemies.
Posted by: ed ||
10/06/2008 10:27 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The first thing we should have done is imposed a MacArthur constitution on Afghanistan. We made the damned fool mistake of trying to preserve what has been *proven* to be a failed system of government.
The rule would have from the onset been created with the idea that it could not be changed for at least 20 years. The entire government would have been sent to school to learn how to govern, then apprenticed to western bureaucrats to learn how to do it in practice.
Very strict rules, any violation of which results in being fired. Totally disregard any social status not based in meritocracy.
Add to this mandatory western style public schools for all children, and a public works project for all unemployed males--which is possible because of their ridiculously low standard wage.
Within a few years, all citizens of Afghanistan are intentionally made *different* from their neighbors in other countries. The more different they can be made, the more difficult it is for negative interface between the two.
#6
More should study the Russian and British experiences and explain why we will be successful.
Because we can study our own experience on the Mexican border 1860-90 and see how we succeeded. Somehow it worked didn't it? Put enough pressure on those raiders and suddenly they find it easier to do their work back on the other side of the border, making the host government unstable and forcing action. And don't try to sell a bill of goods that the Territorial government let alone those in Washington weren't awash in corruption either at the time.
#8
NS, our lines of communication in Afghanistan are just fine (and way better than Mexico 100 years ago); I think you mean our lines of supply, and that would be quite true.
#12
"Ayers/Dohrn in '12" is what it is really trying to say, TMY.
Amazing how witty and clever these libtards think their transparent lies are; fooling the primitive masses, all that. I think it comes from deriving their entire worldview, their entire personalities even, from stand-up comedy and the media sound-bite world.
It is quite possible to create an Afghan government that will keep international terrorists from using the country as a base. That is the objective here, not to Christianize, civilize, or consumerize the Afghan hillbillies. At one time, Afghanistan did in fact have a national government that could do that. It was a monarchy and it was quite successful in keeping tribal "disturbances" within reasonable bounds from about 1920 until communist meddling led to its overthrow in the 70s. The last king, Mohammed Zahir Shah, returned from exile in 2002 and died just last year.
From McCain's speech today (I posted in comments, but it needs to be read) and pray that he is counting on The One having only 24 hours to get his answers together for this, and on national TV with NO teleprompter.
Senator Obama has accused me of opposing regulation to avert this crisis. I guess he believes if a lie is big enough and repeated often enough it will be believed. But the truth is I was the one who called at the time for tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that could have helped prevent this crisis from happening in the first place.
Senator Obama was silent on the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and his Democratic allies in Congress opposed every effort to rein them in. As recently as September of last year he said that subprime loans had been, quote, a good idea. Well, Senator Obama, that good idea has now plunged this country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
To hear him talk now, youd think hed always opposed the dangerous practices at these institutions. But there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest he did. He was surely familiar with the people who were creating this problem. The executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have advised him, and he has taken their money for his campaign. He has received more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other senator in history, with the exception of the chairman of the committee overseeing them. Did he ever talk to the executives at Fannie and Freddie about these reckless loans? Did he ever discuss with them the stronger oversight I proposed? If Senator Obama is such a champion of financial regulation, why didnt he support these regulations that could have prevented this crisis in the first place? He wont tell you, but you deserve an answer.
My opponent has invited serious questioning by announcing a few weeks ago that he would quote -- take off the gloves. Since then, whenever I have questioned his policies or his record, he has called me a liar.
Rather than answer his critics, Senator Obama will try to distract you from noticing that he never answers the serious and legitimate questions he has been asked. But let me reply in the plainest terms I know. I dont need lessons about telling the truth to American people. And were I ever to need any improvement in that regard, I probably wouldnt seek advice from a Chicago politician.
My opponents touchiness every time he is questioned about his record should make us only more concerned. For a guy whos already authored two memoirs, hes not exactly an open book. Its as if somehow the usual rules dont apply, and where other candidates have to explain themselves and their records, Senator Obama seems to think he is above all that. Whatever the question, whatever the issue, theres always a back story with Senator Obama.
All people want to know is: What has this man ever actually accomplished in government? What does he plan for America? In short: Who is the real Barack Obama? But ask such questions and all you get in response is another barrage of angry insults.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/06/2008 16:15 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Now then, let's have Governor Palin tee off on these comments tomorrow in Michigan. And let's have Mac say these same words again in Ohio.
And let's get Governor Romney, Mayor Guiliani, Governor Huckabee, et al., off their asses and get them to work. They promised Mac they would help. Now would be good. It's time to swarm the MSM, particularly the talk show circuit, and make it hard to be ignored.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/06/2008 16:17 Comments ||
Top||
#6
About f'in time!
wait for the out of context / edited quotes on tonight's news; 180 degree fliperroo i'll bet.
#7
Someone needs to make a poster image 2x2 of Pelosi, Frank, Dodd and Reid with the large title 'Gang of Four'. Run against a Congress portrayed as that and you'll get the American people mad enough by November for 'Change'.
#9
I've been watching McCain live on Fox News. He truly has taken the gloves off.
Between that and this (H/T to Mickey Kaus via Instapundit), I'm wondering if we're not about to witness the Mother of All October Surprises. One can always hope (snicker, snicker, chuckle)...
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
10/06/2008 22:06 Comments ||
Top||
To All My Friends, this is long, but very important, please take the time to read it.
This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. About six months ago, I started thinking "where did the money come from for Obama". I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.
Continued on Page 49
....What are McCain's options to turn this race around?
From what I hear, the campaign's plans are to put John McCain back in the seat of his A-4 Skyhawk bomber and drop bomb after bomb on Obama to try to convince voters he is unfit to lead.
I think that formula will lead to failure, just as Hillary Clinton's strategy failed.
Personal attacks won't work this late in the campaign and may backfire on McCain. He must attack Obama's policy and spending proposals. iReport.com: Do you support the recent campaign attacks?
When you are fighting a brand, you must redefine the brand. "Change" means what? Is change the "Robin Hood tax policies" of traditional Democrats that shifts earned wealth from productive people and small businesses that create jobs to those who have not had the same success?
Is change adding billions of new entitlement programs as promised by Obama in a time of record deficits? That is certain to make the recession deeper and last longer.
Is change altering our spending priorities away from national defense and weakening our military or homeland security in a time of uncertainty both at home and abroad?
With two debates left and four weeks for a national dialogue, let's find out who these guys really are and what direction they want to take this country. We are still in a war on two fronts. We are in an economic disaster. America has no faith in the political or financial leadership in this country.
Democrats will still control both houses of Congress and add more House and Senate members after this election. I promise you they are not about change. They are about taxing and spending.
Electing President Obama would eliminate important checks and balances on liberal Democratic power in Washington and that could be a disaster. It was a disaster when Bush and the Republicans controlled it all. It was a disaster when Clinton and the Democrats controlled it all.
John McCain, your challenge is to tell us what Obama's change means! Is it just rhetoric, or if not, is it really change in a bad direction? Don't waste your time beating up on him. Challenge his ideas and promises.
If you can do it effectively, you might come back from the deficit you now face. If you can't, you face the possibility of an electoral and popular defeat of landslide proportions.
The good thing about ice is it melts with heat. Mr Maverick, turn up the heat!
#1
From what I hear, the campaign's plans are to put John McCain back in the seat of his A-4 Skyhawk bomber and drop bomb after bomb on Obama to try to convince voters he is unfit to lead.
I think that formula will lead to failure, just as Hillary Clinton's strategy failed.
By themselves, a campaign based SOLELY on Obama's past associations would probably fail. A McCain campaign SOLELY on Obama's economic policies would also fail. But a campaign of AYERS+WRIGHT+REZKO+FANNIE MAE-FREDDIE MAC CONTRIBUTIONS and Obama's tax and spend plans for the country will work to McCain's benefit. The trick is to weave them together to fill out the picture for voters - that Obama's "hope" for America is truly a nightmare scenario of economic and social disaster - a plausible future based on BO's past votes, planks, and past associations.
McCain: 'Senator Obama was silent on the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and his Democratic allies in Congress opposed every effort to rein them in.'
John McCain, today, finally starts talking about Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the irresponsible leadership at both, and the Democrats' efforts to prevent serious oversight:
Our current economic crisis is a good case in point. What was his actual record in the years before the great economic crisis of our lifetimes?
This crisis started in our housing market in the form of subprime loans that were pushed on people who could not afford them. Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread. This corruption was encouraged by Democrats in Congress, and abetted by Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has accused me of opposing regulation to avert this crisis. I guess he believes if a lie is big enough and repeated often enough it will be believed. But the truth is I was the one who called at the time for tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that could have helped prevent this crisis from happening in the first place.
Senator Obama was silent on the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and his Democratic allies in Congress opposed every effort to rein them in. As recently as September of last year he said that subprime loans had been, quote, a good idea. Well, Senator Obama, that good idea has now plunged this country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
To hear him talk now, youd think hed always opposed the dangerous practices at these institutions. But there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest he did. He was surely familiar with the people who were creating this problem. The executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have advised him, and he has taken their money for his campaign. He has received more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other senator in history, with the exception of the chairman of the committee overseeing them. Did he ever talk to the executives at Fannie and Freddie about these reckless loans? Did he ever discuss with them the stronger oversight I proposed? If Senator Obama is such a champion of financial regulation, why didnt he support these regulations that could have prevented this crisis in the first place? He wont tell you, but you deserve an answer.
UM OK, How about this?
snip. Our current economic crisis is a good case in point. What was his actual record in the years before the great economic crisis of our lifetimes?
This crisis started in our housing market in the form of subprime loans that were pushed on people who could not afford them. Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread. This corruption was encouraged by Democrats in Congress, and abetted by Senator Obama.
Read it all:http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/06/mccain-blasts-obama-democrats-for-fannie-mae-meltdown/
#4
McCain has now given The One only 24 hours to get answers to these questions together, and speak them with teleprompter!
I noticed in the last debate, most of The One's responses had already been used, via Teleprompter -- he's had time to embed them into himself.
He now has only 24 hours -- how is he going to answer this, without teleprompter.
McCain didn't stop with the above ---
A bit more from that same speech--
My opponent has invited serious questioning by announcing a few weeks ago that he would quote -- take off the gloves. Since then, whenever I have questioned his policies or his record, he has called me a liar.
Rather than answer his critics, Senator Obama will try to distract you from noticing that he never answers the serious and legitimate questions he has been asked. But let me reply in the plainest terms I know. I dont need lessons about telling the truth to American people. And were I ever to need any improvement in that regard, I probably wouldnt seek advice from a Chicago politician.
My opponents touchiness every time he is questioned about his record should make us only more concerned. For a guy whos already authored two memoirs, hes not exactly an open book. Its as if somehow the usual rules dont apply, and where other candidates have to explain themselves and their records, Senator Obama seems to think he is above all that. Whatever the question, whatever the issue, theres always a back story with Senator Obama. All people want to know is: What has this man ever actually accomplished in government? What does he plan for America? In short: Who is the real Barack Obama? But ask such questions and all you get in response is another barrage of angry insults.
#5
That was a whale of a speech. I'm really beginning to warm up to Sarah Palin's running mate!
Posted by: Mike ||
10/06/2008 16:06 Comments ||
Top||
#6
One thing Sen. McCain understands, and that his staff understands, and that many of us do not, is timing.
You have to set up your argument before you can make it. And sometimes you're constrained by other events.
Mr. McCain couldn't do this particular speech while the Bailout bill was going through Congress. He had to wait. Since the bailout came through on Friday, he had to wait until today, else his broadside would have been lost on the weekend chatter and football. And his people have been working hard to get a base level of consciousness about Obama, Ayers, etc, etc into the public (very hard when the MSM is so deep in the tank for Obama that they've grown gills) -- without that, the attack sounds phony and screechy.
You have to be a boxer, or a military person, or a CEO type. First you set up the battle, then you fight it. You don't just flail. Mr. McCain showed us today that he understands that.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/06/2008 16:31 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I think that formula will lead to failure, just as Hillary Clinton's strategy failed.
I'm sorry Ed Rollins but Hillary is not John McCain. She was shrill and scary and leaned way to the left. John McCain is a war hero who gave five years of his life in the Hanoi Hilton while the likes of the left's darlings such as Jane Fonda were visiting North Vietnam to slam our troops thus scoring a propaganda coup for our enemy.
#8
Based on conversations I've been in the last few days, Mac can shake some people's confidence in Obama but he also has to make them feel like he has a way forward.
...America needs both uplift and realism, both change and steadiness. It needs a leader temperamentally, intellectually, and emotionally attuned to the complexities of our troubled globe. That leaders name is Barack Obama.
#2
Barry, the choice of the east and west coast elite, Hollywood left, intelligentsia, wanna-be socialists, and aging radicals and domestic terrorists.
Posted by: ed ||
10/06/2008 10:50 Comments ||
Top||
#4
From a Reader's Digest poll: Barack Obama's proclamation last July to being a "citizen of the world" was affirmed Monday as a new poll -- taken before the August conventions -- showed that in 16 out of 17 countries surveyed he was the overwhelming choice to be the next president of the United States.
The lone country to prefer a John McCain presidency: the U.S.
I just pray that US voters are fairly represented, as I don't want a president that looks after the world's interests before mine.
#5
And why, is that voters should care about the opinion of a bunch of a journalists, a profession who is notorious for not recruiting neither the mater nor the more honest people who leave high school?
#6
I could not possibly care less about what the editors of tne New Yukker think. As with the NYT, anything they say has to be checked every way possible for lies and anything they like is probably detrimental to the United States.
#11
Another fine product of the Obama-Ayers Annenberg Chicago school system comes to grace this modest web site. Bomb throwing and running away comes naturally to these indoctrinated tykes.
Posted by: ed ||
10/06/2008 14:59 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I hope everyone understands that media outlets are OWNED BY INDIVIDUALS who determine content, direction, etc. The people who work for them, work for their boss (the owner) and do what they're told. The owners are so invisible, but trust me, they're calling the shots and like to manipulate public opinion. They are like the owners of sports teams (only in the very loosest sense), in that no one really notices the owners, just the coaches and the players.
Whatever the much anticipated vice presidential debate may have told us about Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Joe Biden, it revealed clear differences in the foreign policy philosophies of the two tickets.
As Mrs. Palin pointed out, when it comes to foreign policy, the Obama-Biden team is backward looking. It continues to view international issues through the prism of opposition to George W. Bush. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Obama-Biden's continuing assertions that the Iraq war was a mistake, from beginning to the end, and that, at best, it constituted an irrelevant distraction from the combat that really matters -- in Afghanistan.
Osama bin Laden himself called Iraq the "central front" in his fight against the United States. Thousands of jihadists operated in Iraq where, with the help of Sen. John McCain's and Gen. David Petraeus's surge strategy, al Qaeda was resoundingly defeated. Its standing in the Muslim world has plummeted.
As in many other conflicts in American history, our enemies in this war operate in many geographically distinct theaters. The essence of being a good commander in chief is appreciating the connections among these theaters -- including the adversary's willingness to open new fronts -- rather than obsessing about where the last enemy attack originated.
This is exactly what President Franklin Roosevelt did in World War II when he chose to dedicate initially the bulk of American resources to the European theater, believing that destroying Hitler's Reich was the most urgent task and that Imperial Japan could be dealt with in turn; history proved him right. Yet, under the Obama-Biden playbook, FDR blundered by getting distracted from the "real" war -- in the Pacific, where America had been attacked.
Another problem with the Obama-Biden foreign policy is its obsession with high stakes presidential-level diplomacy focused on the world's rogue states. Of course, high level diplomacy is a key tool of statecraft, but it risks devaluing the president's own capital on the international stage.
Having a president try and fail fundamentally damages the nation's own credibility. The textbook example of this phenomenon remains Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev's taking the measure of a young and inexperienced John F. Kennedy in the 1961 Vienna Summit meeting. Khrushchev found Kennedy to be ill-informed and weak, and consequently embarked on an aggressive policy in Berlin and Cuba. Although Kennedy ultimately proved that he was made of sterner stuff, the world was nevertheless brought to the very brink of a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The next president will likely be similarly tested by Russia and by Iran. Iranian leaders are stubbornly pursuing a policy of acquiring nuclear weapons, despite years of dialogue with Western interlocutors. The chances that they would take any more seriously diplomatic advances from a new and untried President Barack Obama are remote. Most likely, they would interpret it as a sign of weakness, causing them to accelerate their nuclear program.
The best way to create a strong negotiating position vis-à-vis Tehran, would be to alter the strategic environment in its backyard, such that the Iraqi government has stabilized that country and maintains strong military and intelligence ties with the United States, while dramatically curtailing Iranian influence. This, of course, is precisely what Mr. McCain's Iraq strategy is in the process of accomplishing, and what Mr. Obama's Iraq policy can never achieve. It would be the McCain-Palin team that is best positioned to engage in fruitful diplomatic dialogue with the Iranians.
#1
It would be the McCain-Palin team that is best positioned to engage in fruitful diplomatic dialogue with the Iranians.
Uh - wrong. The McCain part of the team, and the team itself, would be immeasurably better in every respect (in all likelihood) than the ridiculous opposition team, when it comes to foreign policy.
But "fruitful diplomatic dialogue" is not an objective, nor even a plausible development WRT Iran. Period.
Having cleared that up, I have to report that I'm still deciding whether the country will redeem itself by picking the quite imperfect M-P team, or if even by putting the preposterous Dem candidate in a position to become president, it has already disgraced itself and become unserious. Also, whether Iran and others like it will have already drawn conclusions based on this unbelievable state of affairs, regardless of the November outcome.
Speaking of which, I still think - and, a separate thing, hope - that things will turn out a bit differently than the media and the Beltway idiots now expect. If it doesn't, hard to see a down limit on the negatives.
#2
No, Iraq was not a distraction: it was the ONLY place in the world where we could expand the war with militant Islam with any force. While Iraq was not the most dangerous opponent it was the most accessible (both politically and logistically, and both are vital). In a way it was like Italy in WWII. None of the reasons listed for going to war were lies, but neither were they the whole truth. In my opinion the two key reasons for taking the war to Iraq were 1) because we could, and 2) because it is the fulcrum for the entire Muslim world - a mix of Sunni & Shia, between Arab and non-Arab, a history of secular and religious, a geographic crossroad. I guess I would call Bush's biggest failure his inability to convince America of the importance of Iraq, but am not sure how that could have been done without being counterproductively open about the above.
#3
The authors of this article have demonstrated such colossal ignorance about the nature of the Iraq War in this piece that I don't know where to even start.
First of all, (authors) Casey and Rivkin have use the classic "Circular Cause and Consequence" fallacy when they suggest that the Iraq War is not a distraction by stating:
Osama bin Laden himself called Iraq the "central front" in his fight against the United States.
But they fail to mention (or are perhaps simply unaware of the fact) that bin Laden and Zawahiri call it so because of US military presence in Iraq. If the US government decided to place 150,000 of its troops in Egypt, then Egypt would become Al Qaeda's "central front" in their fight against the United States; and if it places 150,000 American troops in Indonesia, then Indonesia would become Al Qaeda's "central front" in their fight against the United States.
The argument that Iraq is not a distraction because "bin Laden himself called Iraq the "central front" in his fight against the United States" is completely hollow, since bin Laden's statement is a consequence of US's decision to keep troops there, not its cause. It's like a man who doesn't shower arguing that clothes shouldn't be worn because they smell bad.
Second, it is stated in this article: "with the help of Sen. John McCain's and Gen. David Petraeus's surge strategy, al Qaeda was resoundingly defeated."
Again, more ignorance. Al Qaeda was defeated because of the Sunni Awakening in Anbar. The Surge helped reduce violence (in select locations) in Iraq, most of which was not Al Qaeda related - it was sectarian based. Reduction in inter-sectarian violence is not the same as Al Qaeda's defeat, something that any marginally informed political analyst should be aware of.
Third, it states: "[al Qaeda's] standing in the Muslim world has plummeted."
Because of the Surge??? Utter ignorance! It's because Al Qaeda's decision to target even the neutral Muslims (in multiple countries, by the way, not just in Iraq), not because of the Surge.
Fourth, the article authors foolishly argue again that the Iraq War isn't a distraction by providing the following analogy:
"This is exactly what President Franklin Roosevelt did in World War II when he chose to dedicate initially the bulk of American resources to the European theater, believing that destroying Hitler's Reich was the most urgent task and that Imperial Japan could be dealt with in turn; history proved him right."
The outright inanity of this analogy is mind-numbing. Hitler's war against Europe wasn't a false intelligence report that was obtained through dubious means by the American government. It was fact! But the US decision to invade Iraq to fight Al Qaeda on the basis of "intelligence" that tied Iraq to Al Qaeda, while ignoring the fact that Al Qaeda leadership was actually hiding in the border region of Afghanistan-Pakistan is stupidity of colossal proportions. At best.
To put it in terms of the World War II perspective as the authors of this article have vainly tried to do would be to argue that, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the US government should have focused its military might on Brazil, where, it was brought to US intelligence's notice, President Getúlio Vargas was secretly having trade deals with the Japanese, some of whom could possibly be related to the pilots who attacked Pearl Harbor.
Fifth, the authors argue:
"Khrushchev found Kennedy to be ill-informed and weak, and consequently embarked on an aggressive policy in Berlin and Cuba."
Note the deceptive "consequently" added into the statement, implying that somehow Khrushchev foreign policy decisions were hinged entirely on Kennedy's persona at the Vienna Summit. That Khrushchev assumed that Kennedy, being the Emperor-God of USA, would base every single one of his decisions entirely on his own impressions, and would not deign to consult any of his advisors or analysts. That, even though he had a team of people hired to advise him at all times, they were simply worthless antiquities since he, The Mighty Emperor-God John Fitzgerald Kennedy, needed no input from these lesser mortals, and would therefore certainly not act in a manner that might go against the first impression Khrushchev received of Kennedy at that Summit. Khrushchev obviously assumed all this immediately upon observing Kennedy being "ill-informed and weak" at the Summit, and "consequently" embarked on an aggressive policy in Berlin and Cuba.
Sixth, the authors argue:
"Most likely, they would interpret it as a sign of weakness, causing them to accelerate their nuclear program."
"Most likely" is just as deceptive here as the "consequently" in the previous point. After displaying such profound ignorance in international affairs, please spare us any more of your personal opinions, and just stick to the facts.
Seventh, the authors continue to display their utterly delusional assessment of the current situation in Iraq when they state:
"The best way to create a strong negotiating position vis-à-vis Tehran, would be to alter the strategic environment in its backyard, such that the Iraqi government has stabilized that country and maintains strong military and intelligence ties with the United States, while dramatically curtailing Iranian influence."
The idea that Iraq is experiencing "Iranian influence" is another example of the profound ignorance of the authors of this piece. What they don't comprehend is the difference between "influence" and "predisposition". The authors should realize that more than 60% of Iraq's population is Shi'ite Muslim, while Iran is a Shi'ite theocracy (almost 90% Shi'ite). So this "influence" that Iran ostensibly has on Iraq is nothing other than common perspective! Even if Iraq was located at the lower tip of South America, these authors would still observe the same "Iranian influence" that they would like to see curtailed.
The outright absurdity of this argument is mind-boggling. No one says that Italy exerts great influence on USA as evidenced by the Pope drawing immense crowds of supporters in his recent visit, crowds who then vote on religious grounds in elections. No one says this because it is plain stupid. Just like the claim that the common perspective seen amongst the Shi'ite in Iraq and Iranians is due to "Iranian influence" is plain stupid. They simply share the same faith! Obviously, they will have a common perspective, regardless of the "influence" of each other.
Given Messrs. Rivkin and Casey's sheer ignorance about international affairs, they should have the moral sensibility to not even vote until they educate themselves, let alone post articles on a news website.
#4
I guess I would call Bush's biggest failure his inability to convince America of the importance of Iraq, but am not sure how that could have been done without being counterproductively open about the above.
Please, tell me how he could have done it: teh President doesn't own the MSM and can't order film directors and singers to bolster morale at home and weken eneemy's. The failure uis taht teh Democrats and, in Europe, the botred elistsis, decided to score oplitical points againt Bush/America and to hell with civilization.
#5
I don't care who calls it what. It was well-located to provide a great shooting gallery for taking out lots and lots of young Saudi jihadis. Now we just need to punish the Iranians for interfering.
#6
I guess I would call Bush's biggest failure his inability to convince America of the importance of Iraq, but am not sure how that could have been done without being counterproductively open about the above.
Is it me or did he really abruptly stop talking about Iraq after his re-election? It seemed like he went directly to Medicare and/or Social Security reform.
Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats ||
10/06/2008 10:13 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I'm not convinced fyst. Your arguments ring hollow. You are convinced of your own logic and I doubt if anyone could say anything that would convince you of any other position.
I'm convinced of my own logic because it happens to be correct. If my arguments sound hollow its because you don't want to believe what I'm saying.
I'm no Obama fan, and I still am, and have always been, for the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Husein, but that doesn't change the fact that he authors of this article are profoundly and comprehensively ignorant about the situation in Iraq.
The Iraq War was absolutely a distraction, even though good came from it in several different ways.
#9
I agree that Iraq 2.0 invasion was right but I so strongly have been upset with the performance and reaction of the Bush administration's execution of the post-war plan.
#11
Inasmuch as it might have been a distraction, with which I do not agree, Iraq is where tens of thousands of jihadis went and died, where the cream of Al Qaeda's leadership and highly trained specialists and the bulk of their funds disappeared forever. This has made the fight in Afghanistan much easier for the good guys than it would otherwise have been, and that is fine with me.
Equally important, at the time we went into Iraq Saddam Hussein was the leading supporter and trainer of terrorist groups in the world. At the Salman Pak facility Iraq was providing training in biological and chemical weapons production, airplane hijacking, bomb-making, etc and so forth. He was sending funds and weapons to just about all of the terror groups in the region -- including openly awarding checks of US$25,000-50,000 for each attempted/successful suicide attack on Israelis. The invasion of Iraq put a stop to all of that. The War on Terror is not merely a fight with Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda conglomerate, but a war with all those who would establish Arab/Muslim rule of the world. Saddam Hussein planned to do that first in 1991 by conquering Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to corner the world's oil supply, and then by sponsoring various jihadi groups to terrorize the world into submission so he could conquer Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and corner the world's oil supply. Why on earth do you think he went to war with Iran? It certainly wasn't because the West was uneasy about the Shiite Revolution in 1979.
#12
The problem with second-guessing Bush Administration post-war plans etc. (or any plans anywhere by anyone) is that you cannot know if an alternative path would have worked better. Case-in-point: 'We should have had more troops on the ground in Iraq from the beginning.' Whatif we had? Would the Sunni Awakenings have awoken or would we just have been more targets for AQ to attack? Where would those troops have come from and what would have happened there, then? Maybe that plan would have worked better, in hindsight we might have reason to think so, but we can never be sure. One thing I CAN be sure of - whatever plan had been implemented we would be very upset with it today.
Al Qaeda and its ideological allies are not a geographically-determined entity. They had a large establishment in Afghanistan, which was quickly destroyed or forced to flee, but Afghanistan or even Pakistan were peripheral to their base, the Arabs of the Middle East. Thats where the money and ideas come from. Once fled, the only place to chase them was into Pakistan - which implies a far larger war by an order of magnitude, and geopolitical complications likewise. There's plenty of otherwise irrelevant Pakistani cannon-fodder there that the Arabs won't miss, they despise them in any case. Iraq is something else - the Shiite angle alone ensures it, as the AQ Wahabbis could not let them grab a potentially rich and powerful state with all the influence that comes with it. Here the war could be brought into the open where the US could get at many of its enemies who were unable to stay away. Bin Laden was right.
AQ in Iraq was defeated by a host of things, all of which were put in place and critically facilitated by the US. The "surge" in reality added few more men to the mix, it was a small escalation. What it really was was a commitment to stay until victory, without which there wouldn't have been much of an "awakening", or the critical growth and new morale of the Iraqi regular forces. Insurgency wars are won mainly by patient commitment, until the other side loses their enthusiasm. In this one it also required time to create an Iraqi state apparatus and military and civic commitment from nothing. We stayed until they had time to bear fruit. The alternative plans had the US leaving, and committed to abandoning all the positive efforts then underway, which would have undercut all our current allies and partners there.
AQ would have much higher standing irrespective of its atrocities (which on the basis of experience doesn't bother the Arab masses very much, if they aren't Arabs, and the right sort of Arabs at that), had AQ gained anything from its efforts. This is a society that, more than usual, works on the basis of honor and humiliation. Defeating an enemy brings great prestige, losing brings derision.
There was no Ruhr to invade in this case, to address your next point. Pakistan isn't it.
"Consequently" is correct, if it fits into the mix of factors considered by Khrushchev. All policy decisions are made by weighting many factors, potential risks and potential benefits. Khrushchev did see Kennedy as weak. This was a significant factor. It may well (and there is good testimony that it did) have tipped the balance on some of these matters.
You have a point on the Iranian nuclear program - I don't think they have ever slowed it down, they have been going as fast as their ability and resources permit for the last couple of decades.
The last argument is plain pettifogging. I am certain the authors understand all thats claimed they don't. I think rather you don't understand their point very well.
There is Iranian influence and there is Iranian influence. These places are thoroughly interpenetrated - there is likewise Iraqi Arab influence on Iran, culturally and religiously. The point here is Iranian political/ideological influence. The Iranian state is run on the basis of a certain strain of Shiite thought, which by default, being the only such strain with substantial state backing, is the most active and influential, to the detriment of everyone besides the Iranian government clique. There would be a considerable reduction in religious and political tensions if an alternative way of Shiism (such as that of Najaf) gains similar or greater influence.
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.
