| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Afghanistan: Not a Good War |
| 2008-08-04 |
| Every war has a story line. World War I was "the war to end all wars." World War II was "the war to defeat fascism." Iraq was sold as a war to halt weapons of mass destruction; then to overthrow Saddam Hussein, then to build democracy. In the end it was a fabrication built on a falsehood and anchored in a fraud. But Afghanistan is the "good war," aimed at "those who attacked us," in the words of columnist Frank Rich. It is "the war of necessity," asserts the New York Times, to roll back the "power of Al Qaeda and the Taliban." |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #7 What Afghanistan need from the beginning was a reboot. That is, an authoritarian effort that would get every unemployed male working in large national infrastructure projects, females busy running things back home with the money their men have earned, and children all attending public boarding schools in safe areas. Those Afghans who are already employed would be tasked with exploiting the work projects created by the WPA-like mass labor, taking from the unemployed men the extra employees they needed as higher wage employees. The children would be getting strictly secular and intensive education. The government should have been given a MacArthur constitution, which would be run by the numbers with every government employee having a western boss looking over his shoulder. Endless repetition and troubleshooting. Western style criminal and civil courts run the same way. Any Muslim anything is for off hours and weekends. During the day, they have prayers and back to work. Good performance means less supervision. Better performance means better pay, perks and promotions. No clerics in government. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-08-04 21:00 |
| #6 Is there anyone but the Taliban that wants them to be in power in Afghanistan? I don't think so. The Taliban created a haven for OBL and AQ. AQ killed 3000 US innocent US citizens in a despicable and hateful act. The Taliban and other Muslims danced in the streets as I remember. Left-wing crap in support of the Taliban. This piece isn't worth wiping one's arse. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2008-08-04 18:01 |
| #5 The Taliwhackers understand power and all its implications. Compassion and a willingness to negotiate are invariably seen as weakness to be exploited. They are incompatible with any society save the one in the mountains of Wazir where they can circumcise their women and shoot people for shaving their beards. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-08-04 17:14 |
| #4 Forget about the strawmen. Is Afghanistan still a good war? Would a surge help or hinder our efforts there? Discuss. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-08-04 17:03 |
| #3 The Taliban did not directly attack us. But they aided, abetted, and sheltered the ones who did. The joker who wrote this piece conveniently forgot to mention that. And after 9/11 the Taliban refused to hand over their al-Q friends to us. All that, alone, was enough justification. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-08-04 12:52 |
| #2 Old-timers on the US left will probably recognize the name Conn Hallinan. His brother Terrence "Kayo" Hallinan was a CP leader on the west coast in the 1960s who eventually became DA for the city of San Francisco. Their father was Vincent Hallinan, an attorney who ran for president on the Progressive Party ticket in 1952 and defended Harry Bridges from deportation. Conn is a provost at the University of California, Santa Cruz. The Hallinan boys do have a knack for getting ahead in the world. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-08-04 12:31 |
| #1 Iraq was sold as a war to halt weapons of mass destruction; then to overthrow Saddam Hussein, then to build democracy. Strawman argument. Just go read the authorization to use force, it explicitly lists the reasons. If you're too lazy to read the actual document, its your problem in not understanding why we went to Iraq. But the Taliban government did not attack the United States. Another strawman argument. Go read that authorization to use force. What part of "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." does your little mind not comprehend? Traditional left wing drivel, it's not about facts, its about feelings. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-08-04 12:19 |