[PassedOut]

I agree with Ken and Winston and y66 on this: There is a serious disconnect between the "war of necessity" rhetoric and the life-goes-on-as-usual attitude here in the US.

Yes, I've heard the argument that this is so because the terrorists are waging "a different kind of war." Supposedly, if we don't go on about our business as usual, it means that the terrorists have won. It's hard for me to express how stupid that argument is.

As I've said before, I don't think we should have done anything militarily in response to 9/11 other than to go all in after Bin Laden and his cohorts until they were wiped out. That would have taught the proper lesson.

But the US didn't do that because we had elected an administration of fools, from top to bottom. Given the situation we are in, the most honorable way to extricate ourselves now is not at all clear to me. But I would like an honest statement of exactly what our young people are dying to accomplish, and why.

And I certainly agree with Ken that people like me should be pulled in also if it is truly a "war of necessity," and our taxes should be hiked to pay for it as it goes on.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Winston, often we disagree. But I thoroughly agree with what I take to be your view that this "let's send the guys to war while we go shopping" stuff is a really bad development in American society

At the same time, Ken, drafting 18-year-olds to go fight and die for no compelling reason is such an abhorent idea to me that I could not ask anyone to make that sacrifice without world-wide significance for the need of the actions.

The problem to me is the label of "war". We really need to get back to the constitutional requirement of Congress declaring war, rather than CNN making that call.

[Winstonm]

Quote

WASHINGTON, June 28 (Reuters) - A key U.S. House of Representatives Democrat said on Monday she is cutting billions of dollars in aid to Afghanistan from spending legislation because she is outraged over reports of corruption and donor aid being flown out the country.

I really wonder on whom Obama relies for accurate information. The entire concept of insurgency warfare as promoted by McChrystal and Patraeus is dependent for success on an honest, stable government. Surely, somewhere along the way someone should have explained this to the President before he made the horrendous decision to out-screw-up the Soviets by trying to turn Afghanistan into a real country with a real goverment - the counterinsurgency success depends on it being vice-vesa - real country, real government, THEN counterinsurgency.

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Jun 29 2010, 04:25 AM, said:

The entire concept of insurgency warfare as promoted by McChrystal and Patraeus is dependent for success on an honest, stable government. Surely, somewhere along the way someone should have explained this to the President before he made the horrendous decision to out-screw-up the Soviets by trying to turn Afghanistan into a real country with a real goverment - the counterinsurgency success depends on it being vice-vesa - real country, real government, THEN counterinsurgency.

Sounds more like a chicken-or-egg problem to me.

[gwnn]

isn't it clear that the egg was first? how is this even a problem?

[helene_t]

gwnn, on Jun 29 2010, 12:14 PM, said:

isn't it clear that the egg was first? how is this even a problem?

It isn't a conceptual problem, indeed eggs were first. But in order to breed chicken and eggs you have to start with either some chicken or some eggs. If you have neither, you have a problem.

Like if you don't have peace in Afghanistan and you don't have a functional government either.

[kenberg]

Even worse news for Obama: Robert Kagan has something good to say about him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0062803754.html

Excerpt:

Quote

President Obama's biggest move, of course, was naming Gen. David Petraeus commander in Afghanistan. The decision signaled Obama's determination to succeed in Afghanistan, despite the growing chorus of wise men counseling, as our wise men always seem to do, a rapid retreat. Those in the region who have been calculating on an American departure in July 2011, regardless of conditions on the ground, should think again. That date was never realistic, and the odds that Petraeus will counsel a premature withdrawal -- or be ordered to withdraw regardless of his assessment of the situation -- is infinitesimal.

Praise from Charles Krauthammer may be only weeks away. Nah.

Although I agree (just on general principles, not because I actually understand the situation) with the comment "that date was never realistic", we might well ask why it was announced.

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on Jun 29 2010, 06:25 AM, said:

gwnn, on Jun 29 2010, 12:14 PM, said:

isn't it clear that the egg was first? how is this even a problem?

It isn't a conceptual problem, indeed eggs were first. But in order to breed chicken and eggs you have to start with either some chicken or some eggs. If you have neither, you have a problem.

Like if you don't have peace in Afghanistan and you don't have a functional government either.

This is the perfect loop-de-loop for the military industrial complex. If there is insurrection, the government is not honest and stable and thus the war can never be won, while the good news for weapons makers is that although the war can never be won it can be fought perpetually. How's that for a win-win?

From the U.S. Army COIN manual:

Quote

"The primary objective of any COIN operation is to foster development of effective governance by a legitimate government."

That sort of rules out Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan as candidate countries, doesn't it?

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jun 29 2010, 12:25 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jun 29 2010, 06:25 AM, said:

gwnn, on Jun 29 2010, 12:14 PM, said:

isn't it clear that the egg was first? how is this even a problem?

It isn't a conceptual problem, indeed eggs were first. But in order to breed chicken and eggs you have to start with either some chicken or some eggs. If you have neither, you have a problem.

Like if you don't have peace in Afghanistan and you don't have a functional government either.

This is the perfect loop-de-loop for the military industrial complex. If there is insurrection, the government is not honest and stable and thus the war can never be won, while the good news for weapons makers is that although the war can never be won it can be fought perpetually. How's that for a win-win?

From the U.S. Army COIN manual:

Quote

"The primary objective of any COIN operation is to foster development of effective governance by a legitimate government."

That sort of rules out Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan as candidate countries, doesn't it?

Winston, it sounds like you are strongly against the current policy in Afghanistan.

What policy/solution do you advocate?

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jun 29 2010, 06:21 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 29 2010, 12:25 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jun 29 2010, 06:25 AM, said:

gwnn, on Jun 29 2010, 12:14 PM, said:

isn't it clear that the egg was first? how is this even a problem?

It isn't a conceptual problem, indeed eggs were first. But in order to breed chicken and eggs you have to start with either some chicken or some eggs. If you have neither, you have a problem.

Like if you don't have peace in Afghanistan and you don't have a functional government either.

This is the perfect loop-de-loop for the military industrial complex. If there is insurrection, the government is not honest and stable and thus the war can never be won, while the good news for weapons makers is that although the war can never be won it can be fought perpetually. How's that for a win-win?

From the U.S. Army COIN manual:

Quote

"The primary objective of any COIN operation is to foster development of effective governance by a legitimate government."

That sort of rules out Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan as candidate countries, doesn't it?

Winston, it sounds like you are strongly against the current policy in Afghanistan.

What policy/solution do you advocate?

Repeating myself, Mike, but I advocate the Rand Corporation position of treating all terrorists as terrorists instead of a jihadist military faction that can be defeated by the actions of military might.

It is not only Afghanistan, but the entire misguided concept of a War on Terror that needs to be rectified.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jun 29 2010, 06:40 PM, said:

mike777, on Jun 29 2010, 06:21 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 29 2010, 12:25 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jun 29 2010, 06:25 AM, said:

gwnn, on Jun 29 2010, 12:14 PM, said:

isn't it clear that the egg was first? how is this even a problem?

It isn't a conceptual problem, indeed eggs were first. But in order to breed chicken and eggs you have to start with either some chicken or some eggs. If you have neither, you have a problem.

Like if you don't have peace in Afghanistan and you don't have a functional government either.

This is the perfect loop-de-loop for the military industrial complex. If there is insurrection, the government is not honest and stable and thus the war can never be won, while the good news for weapons makers is that although the war can never be won it can be fought perpetually. How's that for a win-win?

From the U.S. Army COIN manual:

Quote

"The primary objective of any COIN operation is to foster development of effective governance by a legitimate government."

That sort of rules out Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan as candidate countries, doesn't it?

Winston, it sounds like you are strongly against the current policy in Afghanistan.

What policy/solution do you advocate?

Repeating myself, Mike, but I advocate the Rand Corporation position of treating all terrorists as terrorists instead of a jihadist military faction that can be defeated by the actions of military might.

It is not only Afghanistan, but the entire misguided concept of a War on Terror that needs to be rectified.

ok what is that position then? I mean they have police in the country now, so I have no idea what you mean. No one is against the police arresting/killing these guys now as far as I know.

[Winstonm]

Excellent description of where we find ourselves: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2502160_pf.html

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jun 29 2010, 06:47 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 29 2010, 06:40 PM, said:

mike777, on Jun 29 2010, 06:21 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 29 2010, 12:25 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jun 29 2010, 06:25 AM, said:

gwnn, on Jun 29 2010, 12:14 PM, said:

isn't it clear that the egg was first? how is this even a problem?

It isn't a conceptual problem, indeed eggs were first. But in order to breed chicken and eggs you have to start with either some chicken or some eggs. If you have neither, you have a problem.

Like if you don't have peace in Afghanistan and you don't have a functional government either.

This is the perfect loop-de-loop for the military industrial complex. If there is insurrection, the government is not honest and stable and thus the war can never be won, while the good news for weapons makers is that although the war can never be won it can be fought perpetually. How's that for a win-win?

From the U.S. Army COIN manual:

Quote

"The primary objective of any COIN operation is to foster development of effective governance by a legitimate government."

That sort of rules out Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan as candidate countries, doesn't it?

Winston, it sounds like you are strongly against the current policy in Afghanistan.

What policy/solution do you advocate?

Repeating myself, Mike, but I advocate the Rand Corporation position of treating all terrorists as terrorists instead of a jihadist military faction that can be defeated by the actions of military might.

It is not only Afghanistan, but the entire misguided concept of a War on Terror that needs to be rectified.

ok what is that position then? I mean they have police in the country now, so I have no idea what you mean. No one is against the police arresting/killing these guys now as far as I know.

It is simple, Mike. Don't try to fight wars against terrorists - there is no win.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jun 29 2010, 06:51 PM, said:

Excellent description of where we find ourselves: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2502160_pf.html

Winston I think all thinking Americans know where we are in Afghanistan.


It is a mess and a stalemate at best, at best.

War is horrible...a nine year war with all the problems you cited and many more problems is horrible.

[NickRW]

Winstonm, on Jun 29 2010, 11:57 PM, said:

It is simple, Mike. Don't try to fight wars against terrorists - there is no win.

Not sure I entirely agree with that. To win against a "terrorist", who is almost always on his home turf, you need to prove to those who would support the terrorist that you are not going to go away - which means a long conflict - not necessarily perpetual though.

[mike777]

NickRW, on Jun 29 2010, 07:25 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 29 2010, 11:57 PM, said:

It is simple, Mike.  Don't try to fight wars against terrorists - there is no win.

Not sure I entirely agree with that. To win against a "terrorist", who is almost always on his home turf, you need to prove to those who would support the terrorist that you are not going to go away - which means a long conflict - not necessarily perpetual though.

I guess if I understand Winston, the debate is the other way to win is:


1) declare victory
2) go away
3) let the police handle it etc.

[NickRW]

mike777, on Jun 30 2010, 05:50 AM, said:

NickRW, on Jun 29 2010, 07:25 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 29 2010, 11:57 PM, said:

It is simple, Mike.  Don't try to fight wars against terrorists - there is no win.

Not sure I entirely agree with that. To win against a "terrorist", who is almost always on his home turf, you need to prove to those who would support the terrorist that you are not going to go away - which means a long conflict - not necessarily perpetual though.

I guess if I understand Winston, the debate is the other way to win is:


1) declare victory
2) go away
3) let the police handle it etc.

Yeah. But perhaps to play devil's advocate a little here, in recent history we have Northern Ireland as an example of where the "terrorist" has, if not been defeated, at least given up their ways. But that was a conflict where the British were also (almost) on home turf, the "terrorist" was making uncomfortable noises on our home turf and it took over a quarter of a century.

The Afghan situation is a long way away (and therefore more expensive) and seems to be on a larger scale (more expensive in terms of money, lives, and, ye gods, pehaps the fact that it is on a larger scale just might mean that our "help" isn't really wanted) and it is, to my mind at least, questionable about the degree to which the Afghans were responsible for our need to be in a "war against terror" mode in the first place.

One has to wonder if, in this particular situation, whether diplomacy and foreign aid might have been both cheaper and more effective.

One also has to wonder if, in the current economic climate, whether spending all this money is not financial suicide - certainly 25+ years of this does not seem like an enticing prospect.

Nick

[mike777]

NickRW, on Jun 30 2010, 11:17 AM, said:

mike777, on Jun 30 2010, 05:50 AM, said:

NickRW, on Jun 29 2010, 07:25 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 29 2010, 11:57 PM, said:

It is simple, Mike.  Don't try to fight wars against terrorists - there is no win.

Not sure I entirely agree with that. To win against a "terrorist", who is almost always on his home turf, you need to prove to those who would support the terrorist that you are not going to go away - which means a long conflict - not necessarily perpetual though.

I guess if I understand Winston, the debate is the other way to win is:


1) declare victory
2) go away
3) let the police handle it etc.

Yeah. But perhaps to play devil's advocate a little here, in recent history we have Northern Ireland as an example of where the "terrorist" has, if not been defeated, at least given up their ways. But that was a conflict where the British were also (almost) on home turf, the "terrorist" was making uncomfortable noises on our home turf and it took over a quarter of a century.

The Afghan situation is a long way away (and therefore more expensive) and seems to be on a larger scale (more expensive in terms of money, lives, and, ye gods, pehaps the fact that it is on a larger scale just might mean that our "help" isn't really wanted) and it is, to my mind at least, questionable about the degree to which the Afghans were responsible for our need to be in a "war against terror" mode in the first place.

One has to wonder if, in this particular situation, whether diplomacy and foreign aid might have been both cheaper and more effective.

One also has to wonder if, in the current economic climate, whether spending all this money is not financial suicide - certainly 25+ years of this does not seem like an enticing prospect.

Nick

Yes that frames the debate.

If terriosts kill 3000+ people in a few hours is it best to respond with diplomacy and more aid money.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jun 30 2010, 08:20 PM, said:

Yes that frames the debate.

If terriosts kill 3000+ people in a few hours is it best to respond with diplomacy and more aid money.

I'd say "satisfactory" rather than best, but yes...

I know that going off and invading random countries might make you feel better.
Me, I'm quite happy with size of my dick.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jun 30 2010, 12:50 AM, said:

NickRW, on Jun 29 2010, 07:25 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 29 2010, 11:57 PM, said:

It is simple, Mike.  Don't try to fight wars against terrorists - there is no win.

Not sure I entirely agree with that. To win against a "terrorist", who is almost always on his home turf, you need to prove to those who would support the terrorist that you are not going to go away - which means a long conflict - not necessarily perpetual though.

I guess if I understand Winston, the debate is the other way to win is:


1) declare victory
2) go away
3) let the police handle it etc.

#4) Actually read the conclusions of the Rand Corporation analysis instead of creating a straw man to tussle with.