George Will is one of the best handwringers out there, and he's in fine form with his worry of the day, that the Taliban might go Tet on us in Pashtunistan.
I could only hope that they do.
Mr. Will doesn't recall the history of Tet: after Tet, the Viet Cong was done as a fighting force, because most Cong cadres were door-knocker dead. It was the North Vietnamese Army that had to carry the fight to us after Tet.
Given that the Talibunnies have only Pakistan, and not China and the Soviet Union, to help them, I wish for a Tet.
Though the American left is the same today as in 1968, if not worse.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/17/2010 12:29 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Tet sucked royally for our guys, who were caught by surprise because our leadership had been busily blabbing about how well we were doing and how the enemy was virtually finished. Then Hue etc. destroyed their credibility. As always, our soldiers quickly adapted, and by the time they were done Tet sucked a whole lot more for the VC than us. But none of it mattered, because we the people were told by our elite that we couldn't win, so instead we spent how many more lives trying to lose with honor. If it's not worth fighting to win, is it worth fighting at all? Regardless of anything about honor.
#2
The Tet Offensive won the war for the VC. Won't be necessary in Afghanistan. Obama has already declared his intentions of cut and run starting in 2011.
#3
A hallmark of the Vietnam war that is seldom mentioned is that it is almost unique in modern war, because neither side would massively concentrate their forces.
When the North would try even a relatively small concentration, the US would use helicopters to transport a lot of personnel quickly for a counter-concentration.
The US learned early on (Battles of Ia Drang) that if it concentrated too many, it was just as vulnerable to a large scale attack on that concentration.
There has been some suggestion that the Viet Cong had become almost independent of the North, based on backing from either the Soviet Union or China, so the North egged them on to pulling Tet, as a win-win for the North, of either the VC taking over the South, or being wiped out in the process.
The bad blood between the Soviet backed North and China remained after the war, as seen in the invasion of Cambodia to displace the Maoist Khmer Rouge, or the head to head border fight with the Chinese army.
Tet is Lunar New Year. As somebody said, like Christmas, New Year's and your birthday all rolled into one. There was also a cease-fire in effect at the time, something that gets overlooked. As Dr. Steve points out, the VC not only lost but were no longer able to fight due to losses. Lucky for them, Walter Cronkite managed to spin it as an American defeat.
#5
I suspect American troops and equipment are better now than during Tet although our faith in the local government is equally low and that's where Tet really hit us.
#8
interesting that John F'n Kerry (D-Pretentious Asshole) has a place in both debacles. His history is one of anti-American political actions. We should make sure that future children learn his name along with Benedict Arnold, Jonathan Pollard, and the Rosenbergs
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/17/2010 23:10 Comments ||
Top||
Perhaps the Western Sahara is the next Somalia, or the next Yemen ...
ROME - The Western Sahara is potentially one of the dossiers of the Mediterranean region that is most at risk.
It seems to go through long periods of oblivion, after which the issue suddenly resurfaces, perhaps after an incident, a declaration or an analysis. In the past weeks, for example, several Spanish newspapers wrote that at this moment Algeria and Morocco are involved in a no-holds-barred conflict.
This hypothesis was immediately confirmed indirectly by the arrest of a former member of the Polisario Front: as soon as he wanted to distance himself from what he sees as intransigence of the movement, he was arrested and charged of spying (or rather of having contacts with the enemy, Morocco in this case).
The person in question is Mustapha Salma Ould Sidi Mouloud, a former high security official for Polisario and member of a family of Saharawi nobility. A few months ago he chose a different path than the movement, looking for a platform to open a dialogue with Morocco. He was immediately banished by the Polisario leadership, which had Mouloud arrested when he returned in Algeria (where the camps of the Sahrawi people are located in Tindouf). Mouloud has repeated several times over the past weeks that he fears for his life and the life of his relatives due to the threats that have been made, according to Mouloud, by Polisario leaders. But he has stated his intentions to return to Tindouf, to ''free my people from the slavery of the Polisario Front''.
These words have probably paved the way for his arrest. Mouloud wanted to explain to the Sahrawi people that the autonomy plan that Morocco proposed to the UN in 2007 could be the solution for the Western Sahara issue, or at least a solid basis on which to make a start with the stabilisation of the region, which seems unlikely today.
The Western Sahara - as large as Italy and currently inhabited by around 400 thousand people - is governed by Morocco since the end of the Spanish colonisation. Morocco in fact considers the area as part of its territory. The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic was instituted in 1976, which for 15 years has fought an armed battle against the Moroccan presence.
Several thousands of Sahrawi have been forced into Algerian territory, in the camps of Tindouf, by victories of the Moroccan armed forces. The Moroccan plan, which includes far-reaching autonomy of the Sahrawi people, but no real independence, has not even been taken into consideration by the Polisario Front, which insists on self-determination with a referendum that should have been held around twenty years ago, but never was. A war of statements and announcements is in progress between Morocco on one side, and Algeria and Polisario on the other.
There is no space for optimism, also because there seems to be insufficient international consensus on yet another UN attempt to reach a solution through negotiations. These problems are confirmed by the exhausting negotiations that have been held in the city of Manhasset (close to New York), between representatives of Morocco, Algeria, and Mauritania in the search for an agreement, which turned out to be impossible to reach. Shifting its focus from the Green March (which was an initiative in November 1975 of King Hassan in which 350 thousand Moroccans entered the Western Sahara, which would soon after be abandoned by Spain), Morocco has chosen the path of diplomacy and political pressure. But Rabat's determination to deny self-determination to the Western Sahara and the Polisario's choice to refuse any compromises to real independence have created a potentially devastating explosive mixture, and not only from a political point of view.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/17/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I've been following this situation on-and-off for years, and I've come to this conclusion: this UN sucks even more than we can ever imagine.
Krauthammer - always interesting, sometimes scary.
Now, with his stunning tax deal, Obama is back. Holding no high cards, he nonetheless managed to resurface suddenly not just as a player but as orchestrator, dealmaker and central actor in a high $1 trillion drama. That's way too generous. What was he going to do, allow a tax increase on top of Obamacare and the Stimulus bill? I don't see why I'd give Bambi credit for doing something he was boxed into doing.
That bipartisan margin will go a long way toward erasing the partisan stigma of Obama's first two years, marked by Stimulus I, which passed without a single House Republican, and a health-care bill that garnered no congressional Republicans at all. Amazing! He can pass a bill with the Trunks, just leaving the libtards behind! He could have done that two years ago.
Despite this, some on the right are gloating that Obama had been maneuvered into forfeiting his liberal base. Nonsense. He will never lose his base. Where do they go? Well. At least the have principles. No they don't. And they do have somewhere to go: they can sit on their hands, the way conservatives and libertarians sat on their hands in 2006 and 2008.
And Obama pulled this off at his lowest political ebb. After the shambles of the election and with no bargaining power - the Republicans could have gotten everything they wanted on the Bush tax cuts retroactively in January without fear of an Obama veto - he walks away with what even Paul Ryan admits was $313 billion in superfluous spending. Including a $6 billion subsidy for ethanol. Why, just a few weeks ago Al Gore, the Earth King, finally confessed that ethanol subsidies were a mistake. Read the whole thing.
Posted by: Bobby ||
12/17/2010 16:21 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The New Comeback Kid
one word
BULLSHIT
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
12/17/2010 20:48 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Perhaps.
But he certainly didn't come out on the losing end of the deal.
OK, I know this isn't WoT, but it would be nice if there was a big national reaction against this, from a site that seems so very proud of it's 2009 Pulitzer Prize winning status. I almost considered putting this in Seedy Politicians, since we don't really have a Seedy Politicians page yet today, but it's clearly an opinion.
#2
Scanning the article, it seems to say it's not a takeover because it's only the first step. I think it fails to examine any consequences - several of which I have read here.
Posted by: Bobby ||
12/17/2010 16:42 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I asked a 92 year old lady over for a visit from England about their health care. She said "them that has gets and them that don't waits". In Canada private medical practice is growing. This in the Telegraph today;
[Asharq al-Aswat] My God...Hezbullies today believes that it has "sisterly"
Seriously, "sisterly"? In a culture that asks, "How many sons do you have?" as a measure of manhood? "Sisterly" means "You have no mustache to be cursed"!
and "friendly" countries, when previously these same countries were viewed as nothing more than traitors and agents [of foreign powers]! In 2006, during an interview with the Al-Jazeera channel, Hezbullies chief Hassan Nasrallah addressed the Arab leaders saying that "I do not expect anything from certain Arab rulers...I am certain that some sons, daughters, and wives of some Arab rulers are with us. But I tell the Arab rulers, I do not want your swords and I do not even want your hearts. To say it in Lebanese slang, the only thing I want from you is to leave us alone. Sit on the fence and have nothing to do with us!" However Hezbullies MP Nawaf al-Musawi has today come out to appeal to "all sisterly and friendly countries to work to abolish the tribunal, because it will bring nothing to Leb except foreign control, aggression and instability!"
The question is, why has Hezbullies remembered its "sisterly" and "friendly" countries today? The answer is simple, and that is that Hezbullies is in real trouble; this is due to the group's own actions and has nothing to do with a conspiracy, as Hezbullies has continually asserted. This is a problem that arose after Nasrallah came out last July and said that the international tribunal would absolve Syria and accuse Hezbullies [of Hariri's liquidation]. This represented the official declaration that Hezbullies was in trouble, and rather than resorting to wisdom, Hezbullies continued its policy of escalation, as the group and others played the so-called "Saudi --Syrian initiative" card. This was a gambit that Hezbullies continued to pursue day after day, even after informed Soddy Arabian and Syrian officials were asked about this [initiative] and answered that "there is no initiative."
However Hezbullies -- whether it truly believes such an initiative exists or not -- continues to talk about this initiative, particularly since there are those [in the group] that want to buy time. Even Nasrallah himself said that he "supports for the Saudi -- Syrian initiative" and invited others "whether they are Iranians, Turks, Qataris, or others, to support it." This is not to mention what has been published by some Hezbullies-affiliated Lebanese newspapers about this initiative, and the members of Hezbullies highlighting this [initiative] and rejecting what was put forward by Soddy Arabia [about there not being any initiative]. This fantasy even reached the Syrian President in Gay Paree who [also] said that there is no Syrian -- Saudi initiative, and that the solution to this problem would have to come from Leb. This is when Hezbullies woke up and remembers the "friendly" and "sisterly" countries.
What is certain is that Hezbullies has not learned from its mistakes, or even from its allies, for when Damascus was believed to be behind Hariri's liquidation, the Syrians did not shriek or shout, and they did not threaten [anybody], rather they said that in the event of any Syrian national being implicated in this crime, he would be prosecuted in Syria. This is how, in a very simple manner, Damascus managed to leave the door open, whilst Hezbullies has escalated the situation and threatened to "cut off the hands" of anyone who tries to arrest any of its members, and today it is asking the aid of the countries that it previously insulted, and their Arab leaders.
Hezbullies's greatest mistake was to ignore a very important fact, and that is that it is a party [and not a country]; therefore it is asking the help of counties, however countries are held to different standards and accountability than [political] parties. Hezbullies, or indeed any party, has a narrow vision, whilst countries have to take far more into account, meaning that they must be flexible and prudent, however under pressure they are
Will Hezbullies realize this before it is too late, or will it continue its policy of escalation? Here's some advice to Hezbullies, as the saying goes "when you are in a hole, stop digging!"
Posted by: Fred ||
12/17/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
#1
Unfortunately the Muslim masses are so easily duped into violence that next they will claim that the earthquakes and floods in PakFulloCrapistan was caused by the infidel and thus offer another recruitment tool. Makes the caveman look rather urbane, no?
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.
(h/t 
